Re: bug in simplify_shallow

["Ruud H.G. van Tol" <rvtol@isolution.nl>]

On 2023-08-27 16:13, Karim Belabas wrote:
> * Ruud H.G. van Tol [2023-08-27 15:42]:
> > On 2023-08-27 14:58, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > [...]to be honest I did not remember that listput returned x and it is
> > > not explicitly documented
> > ? ??listput
> > listput( list,x,{n}):
> > [...] The function returns the inserted element.
> What "the inserted element" means is ambiguous in the context of PARI's
> memory model. What the implementation does is return a direct pointer to
> the new list entry, that inserted element being a clone of the input x.
>
> What Bill and I suggested was to return "a copy of the inserted element"
> instead. I don't really see a scenario where this would break
> compatibility ... except this would make insertion about twice slower,
> even in cases where the returned value is ignored.

Yes, so I wondered if the "void calling context" is decidable at 
compile-time,
such that any new overhead can be avoided where feasible.

-- Ruud