[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Decoded time accessors
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Decoded time accessors |
Date: |
Mon, 08 Jul 2019 17:41:39 +0300 |
> Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 21:43:26 +0000
> From: Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
>
> My limited experience of this is that people don't bother to write the
> necessary doc strings, or don't bother to write them properly, so one is
> left guessing at the precise semantics. For example the doc string for
> `file-attribute-size' is poor, whereas the doc string for
> `file-attribute' is better, though still not perfect. To understand the
> former, one must read _both_ doc strings. This is not a win.
Can you tell more about your example? AFAICT, file-attribute-size
just repeats what file-attributes says about its 7th element, nothing
more, nothing less. What is missing from the doc string of the former
that requires you to read the latter?
> I disagree. All these "readability hacks" greatly increase the number
> of functions a hacker must cope with
I think "must" hear is inaccurate, because you can still reference the
original list by element numbers. Only those who want it will use the
accessors.