bug#7545: 24.0.50; (elisp) `Simple Types'

[Chong Yidong]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
>
>> Why are types `alist' and `plist' considered simple types?  Seems like
>> they are like `cons', `repeat', and `list', not like `string' and
>> `symbol'.  They are structures with component types.  Don't they belong
>> in node `Composite Types'?
>
> That seems logical.

It's a corner case, since alist and plist can have omitted arguments, so
it is not necessary to specify the composite elements like the other
composite types.  But I don't mind moving the rather long descriptions
to Composite Types node.  Changed in the emacs-23 branch.

> But this report was marked as "notabug", but doesn't show how it got
> that mark.

No idea; operator error maybe.