bug#12314: 24.2.50; `add-to-history': use `setq' with `delete'

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: drew.adams@oracle.com,  12314@debbugs.gnu.org,  cyd@gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 17:37:53 -0400
> 
> >> > I meant "why does it matter FOR THE USER that the modification was
> >> > destructive?"  Users don't care about optimizations, they only care
> >> > about performance.
> >> Because this optimization improves performance,
> > But this optimization was already done.  We don't tell users in the
> > manuals about each and every optimization we do to improve
> > performance, do we?
> 
> I don't understand the question: the user of delete/delq/nconc (the one
> reading their docstring or their texinfo doc) is the person
> reading/writing the code, and the optimization is the act of choosing
> delete over remove or delq over remq or nconc over append, which is
> exactly what the reader will want to know, I think.

See my other message: I think we are talking about 2 different
things.  My gripe was only about using the term "destructive
modification", which muddies the waters without gaining anything.