[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#42324: 26.3; Doc string of `seq-concatenate'
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#42324: 26.3; Doc string of `seq-concatenate' |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Aug 2020 21:57:50 +0300 |
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Cc: stefan@marxist.se, 42324@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> > The doc string seems clear to me. And since I don't understand what
> > are #1, #2, and #3 in your notation, I cannot continue this discussion
> > in any useful way, sorry.
>
> >From the bug report (and elsewhere in the thread I
> also made clear what #1, #2, and #3 referred to):
>
> 1. See bug #42323 for the problem of the unhelpful,
> implicit reference to CL implementations and
> "generic function".
There's no reference to CL in the current doc string.
> 2. The doc of `seq-concatenate' _really_ needs a
> description of how it differs from `cl-concatenate'.
> That's completely unclear.
There's no reference to cl-concatenate in the current doc string.
> 3. The doc says nothing about each SEQUENCE actually
> being automatically converted (by copying, presumably)
> into a real sequence: `seq-into-sequence'.
Why should it mention something like that?
> It's
> not clear what's allowed as SEQUENCE.
Any sequence, obviously. Anyway, the current doc string spells it
out:
TYPE must be one of following symbols: vector, string or list.
> #2 is the main reason I filed this bug report. What's the difference?
> Why/when would you use one rather than the other?
I guess that problem no longer exists with the current doc string.