bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions'

[Michael Heerdegen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> In what sense is that a contradiction?  (+ 1 10) is equivalent to (1+ 10),
> so we have N = 2 arguments in the original function and M = 1 = N - 1 in
> the new one.

No, N is described as the number of arguments the function accepts, not
as the number of arguments in someone's example.  So

 N = infinity, and  M = N - 1 = infinity.

But Emacs' `1+' accepts one argument. 1 /= infinity.  Different
functions.

It is a detail, but given that the preceding paragraph explains the
arity, and then we give an example that doesn't preserve arity, it's a
detail with the potential of confusion.

> > I'm a bit confused that you don't consider this a problem, and also that
> > you said there were no concrete suggestions.

> Why are you saying the suggestion is not being considered, whereas in
> reality it was considered (and rejected)?

I responded to "there were no suggestions" without reading everything of
the thread.  I had the impression that the bug had been closed in a
rush.  Maybe I was wrong.  Stefan's explanation was confusing to me.

> I cannot disagree more.  That one line doesn't make anything clear, it
> just shows the implementation.

It does for me.  We can't have both?

> I object to deleting that.  That text certainly helps me, so it cannot
> be useless, let alone harmful.

Why again was saying something like "note that unlike the built-in
function this version accepts any number of arguments" rejected?


Michael.