Re: lsh function documentation

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>
> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 12:34:59 +0100
> 
> The function documentation of lsh says:
> | Most uses of this function turn out to be mistakes.  We recommend
> | to use ‘ash’ instead, unless COUNT could ever be negative, and
> | if, when COUNT is negative, your program really needs the special
> | treatment of negative COUNT provided by this function.
> 
> I understand that lsh has no useful semantics for negative bignums
> (bug #32463). However, old versions of the Lisp Reference Manual list
> lsh and ash in the same section, and don't prefer either function:
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/doc/lispref/numbers.texi?h=emacs-26.3#n811
> 
> So why would programmers who had used something like (lsh x 8) in their
> code be called out for making a mistake?
> 
> Couldn't lsh's documentation just say that the function is deprecated
> and that ash should be used instead? 

We've been there, see bug#56641.

I'm not sure I understand the problem you have with the current text
in the manual and/or the doc string of lsh.