GNU bug report logs - #32125
26; Doc of `seqp` versus `sequencep`

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 32125 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 32125 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

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

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 26; Doc of `seqp` versus `sequencep`
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 06:50:44 -0700 (PDT)

Neither the doc strings nor the descriptions in (elisp) `Sequence
Functions' make clear what the difference is between these predicates.

(It's not even clear why `seq' was added.  What's that about?)

And the name `seqp' seems like a bad choice.  the predicate names
themselves should at least give some hint of the difference.

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."

And in (elisp) `Sequence Functions' the entries for these two predicates
should be right next to each other.


In GNU Emacs 26.1 (build 1, x86_64-w64-mingw32)
 of 2018-05-30
Repository revision: 07f8f9bc5a51f5aa94eb099f3e15fbe0c20ea1ea
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 `configure --without-dbus --host=x86_64-w64-mingw32
 --without-compress-install 'CFLAGS=-O2 -static -g3''

Message #8 received at 32125 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 32125 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: 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 <at> 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.

Message #13 received at 32125-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 32125-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Subject: Re: bug#32125: 26; Doc of `seqp` versus `sequencep`
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 19:34:38 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 06:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> 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.

Last update here was one year ago, and I can't see that there is
anything else to do here after Eli's fixes.  I'm therefore closing
this bug.

If anyone disagrees, feel free to re-open.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Previous Next

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