Re: member inconsistency?

[Fabrice Popineau]

Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org> writes:

> 
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
>   > > In contrast, `member' (and `memql' in the float case) has no check 
and
>   > > also uses a for-loop with the condition CONSP (tail), and when 
this
>   > > fails, the function just returns Qnil.
> 
>   > `delete' and `delq' also has the bug.
> 
> Why consider it a bug?  What is wrong with it?
> 

It makes it harder to catch the bug if you
inadvertently call member with its second
argument not being a sequence ?

Fabrice