From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:01:25 -0700 Message-ID: <6687A7F5E2BC445C81F8BA96456112AA@us.oracle.com> References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org><5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com><83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org><83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org><3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com><83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org><38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com><83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com><526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com><18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com><5F77CAC8A1ED4CD19FFE4DA49C3BBF14@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1278952228 11353 80.91.229.12 (12 Jul 2010 16:30:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:30:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Richard Stallman' To: "'Andreas Schwab'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 12 18:30:26 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYLth-0007Yk-O4 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:30:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52753 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OYLth-0006e8-3Q for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:30:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46716 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OYLtV-0006aK-1G for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:30:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYLtT-0004Gw-Cx for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:30:13 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:60346) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYLtT-0004Gr-Ba for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:30:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYLSE-00017v-Cs; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:02:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:02:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6591 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 6591-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6591.12789504984324 (code B ref 6591); Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:02:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2010 16:01:38 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYLRp-00017h-PG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:01:37 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYLRn-00017c-9O for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:01:35 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com (rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6CG1ZBg003567 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:01:36 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6C9B9uO013912; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:01:33 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt013.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 418884091278950487; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:01:27 -0700 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.194) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:01:26 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acsh1pBtpFf0kUlUQN+cBdFYMqMXxQAAyPkg In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090202.4C3B3C5F.010A:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:02:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:38449 Archived-At: > There are multiple arguments all matched by the parameter. Yes, so? It is a &rest parameter. How shall we convey that in the doc? That is the question. `...' typically signifies repetition of what it follows. If `...' follows BODY, then that (normally) means repetition of BODY - which is not what we mean in Emacs (there is only one body). Repetition of arguments, yes. And those arguments are sexps, not BODYs. A single &rest parameter BODY, yes. And that BODY is not a sexp - it is a list of sexps that is spliced in. It's not about actual args vs parameters. It's about describing the syntax unambiguously, whether you describe args or parameters. But you and Eli do not agree about `...' apparently. For him `...' does not signify repetition; it means that BODY is a &rest parameter - hence we can legitimately speak of only a single BODY. You cannot have it both ways. Either BODY is the list of what follows TAG, spliced in, or BODY represents a single sexp (Lisp form) and is repeatable. In the latter case, BODY should be called FORM or SEXP, because the word "body" suggests there is only one. In the former case, `...' coincides with common practice. In the latter choice it does not. In either case we need to spell out the syntax convention that we use, somewhere in the doc - that is missing AFAICT. In the latter choice it is especially important to do that, since our convention does not fit what readers see elsewhere.