Re: lsh function documentation

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 17:15:24 +0100
> 
> >>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > We've been there, see bug#56641.
> 
> > I'm not sure I understand the problem you have with the current text
> > in the manual and/or the doc string of lsh.
> 
> It's not clear to me what the message "most uses turn out to be
> mistakes" tries to communicate. Was it a mistake to use lsh in code
> written in the pre-bignum era?

Most uses of it, yes.  They should have used ash instead.

> Also, it's not consistent that the function emits a compiler warning,
> but at the same time isn't labelled as deprecated.

We don't necessarily want consistency of that kind, not in all cases,
anywhere.  If you've read the discussion of the above bug, you've seen
the reasons for not deprecating it.

> If there are still valid uses, then there shouldn't be a warning. If
> not, it should be deprecated. The current status doesn't make sense
> IMHO.

Well, we obviously disagree.

And if this still doesn't convince you, then let's agree to disagree.