[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#32125: 26; Doc of `seqp` versus `sequencep`
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#32125: 26; Doc of `seqp` versus `sequencep` |
Date: |
Sat, 14 Jul 2018 11:18:49 +0300 |
> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 06:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
>
> Neither the doc strings nor the descriptions in (elisp) `Sequence
> Functions' make clear what the difference is between these predicates.
I think it does:
This function returns non-‘nil’ if OBJECT is a sequence (a list or
array), or any additional type of sequence defined via ‘seq.el’
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
generic functions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> (It's not even clear why `seq' was added. What's that about?)
See above. At least on the level your question was asked, the answer
is clearly there.
> And the name `seqp' seems like a bad choice. the predicate names
> themselves should at least give some hint of the difference.
Is this a separate bug? Is it really important?
> The doc for `seqp' should not just punt and tell users to go look in
> `seq.el' to figure out what it means: "or any additional type of
> sequence defined via 'seq.el' generic functions."
What would you suggest as a better wording? The difficulty here is
that seq.el provides features that are inherently extensible, so I
don't think an exhaustive list can be given. But I might be wrong.
> And in (elisp) `Sequence Functions' the entries for these two predicates
> should be right next to each other.
I don't see a compelling reason to have them adjacent, but I did add
some text in the description of each one of them to mention the other
one.
Thanks.