bug#40671: [DOC] modify literal objects

[Michael Heerdegen]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> In sum, "literal object" is nowhere defined,
> described, or explained.  And "object" sounds
> wrong, to me, when referring to source-code text.

Yes, it's vague.  Maybe the place I cited should formulated otherwise,
since we didn't use the term for the "no no" objects, for reasons.


BTW (also @Paul) there are some places (five or so) in Elisp source
files that look like

  (nconc '(x y z) (get-some-list))

Should they be rewritten?


Michael.