GNU bug report logs - #10189
wholenump versus natnump

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 10189 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 10189 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #3 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: wholenump versus natnump
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 21:29:43 -0500

Package: emacs
Severity: minor

The Elisp manual says (since at least v21):

   @code{natnump} is an obsolete synonym for @code{wholenump}.

However, the doc-string of natnump does not say anything about it being
an (obsolete) alias for wholenump.

wholenump is used a grand total of 7 times in the Emacs sources,
whereas natnump is used ~ 100 times.


Either natnump should be marked obsolete and replaced with wholenump, or
the manual should be changed.

Message #6 received at 10189 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Chong Yidong <cyd <at> gnu.org>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 10189 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#10189: wholenump versus natnump
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 15:26:31 +0800

Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Package: emacs
> Severity: minor
>
> The Elisp manual says (since at least v21):
>
>    @code{natnump} is an obsolete synonym for @code{wholenump}.
>
> However, the doc-string of natnump does not say anything about it being
> an (obsolete) alias for wholenump.

No point making it obsolete, anyway.  I've clarified this in the manual,
thanks for spotting it.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.