From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#30241: Emacs 26.0.91: "Generalized variables" are not defined. Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:54:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7e0daea2-f6e1-4b57-a439-df03b35aac3e@default> References: <20180124200652.GA4493@ACM> <83h8r8ln7u.fsf@gnu.org> <41654c7c-2d8d-44ec-a5c4-dd12014b7a9e@default> <83o9lfk2sy.fsf@gnu.org> <20180210215841.GB4537@ACM> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1518303527 1705 195.159.176.226 (10 Feb 2018 22:58:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 22:58:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 30241@debbugs.gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 10 23:58:42 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eke5x-0006kU-AJ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 23:58:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45214 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eke7z-0003uX-0A for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 18:00:15 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53895) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eke7o-0003tW-8X for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 18:00:05 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eke7n-0002bg-2H for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 18:00:04 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:57684) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eke7m-0002aq-V3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 18:00:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eke7m-0008R2-Ha for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 18:00:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 23:00:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 30241 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 30241-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B30241.151830359032381 (code B ref 30241); Sat, 10 Feb 2018 23:00:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 30241) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Feb 2018 22:59:50 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37348 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eke7a-0008QC-E6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:59:50 -0500 Original-Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:52806) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eke7Z-0008Q0-83 for 30241@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:59:49 -0500 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w1AMxMOO124525; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 22:59:43 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2017-10-26; bh=7vMHfHtcbNiTdHU170FSHEXXVI71HE5b8jn1ht42LOI=; b=T3iWrzzg/dmkU2YSzEp5oj/8KeI4p6pZGYvAj4VQuUb/RYno3uDiofD4oBySZLYIxJ6+ fy4qZqQLyCseeYL59c9fu8/76KLSa3niwDsoYzmiDmwQpCmwgBdr7lIBr125ylrjoQg2 WOY51jWApgLG5CYkZs1234FzGggbq0SaHQQjTjNfFEvLNhaWP3zLnMbOg36O49ZsxpjD DGWxX4WGpFYjsc/rNi3zl9JIzX4S+c8wH+Tkhe32RTDj/esgmDWPu1jLaL1Ci7BDcfF7 bpvlGI6rRWfktCqjZ2gydrYdYVVmBxI+P2OM26dRPaBSsbmgJcNYjq4823/6OjT+lvzO ow== Original-Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2g29vk00x2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 10 Feb 2018 22:59:43 +0000 Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w1AMt0RC015420 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 10 Feb 2018 22:55:02 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0009.oracle.com (abhmp0009.oracle.com [141.146.116.15]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w1AMt0ko019917; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 22:55:00 GMT In-Reply-To: <20180210215841.GB4537@ACM> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4639.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=8801 signatures=668668 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=857 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1802100302 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 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: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:143116 Archived-At: > > > I think you'll see a difference - it is, IMO, "significantly > > > different". >=20 > > Actually, no, I didn't. I do see some additional explanations that > > might have helped Alan understand the issue, but nothing > > "significant". So much so that I doubt Alan will find the CL docs > > helpful after disliking our docs of the same subject, as he did, based > > on his original bug report. Of course, it's possible that I'm missing > > something here. >=20 > > Therefore, I invite Alan (and anyone else who'd like to chime in) to > > please compare the CL docs on this matter with ours, and tell what > > parts of the former made the issue "fall into place" (pun intended) > > wrt this topic, where our docs don't. Bonus points for proposing > > patches for the relevant parts of the ELisp manual, to make this > > subject's documentation "significantly" better. >=20 > I've read..., > and found it clear indeed. However it was also long. After reading it, > the Elisp sections on generalised variables make much more sense. >=20 > This suggests that these Elisp sections contain the material, but are > not suitable for readers who don't already understand generalised > variables. >=20 > In that CL page, a generalised variable is effectively defined as > something you can use `setf' on within the first three paragraphs. In > the elisp sections, that identification is not present in the opening > paragraphs - there is no definition on that opening page. The first > sub-page does not define a generalised variable as something you can use > setf on - it merely says setf is a way to access one. But that > definition needs to be in the top level page, and it needs to be clear > that it _is_ a definition. >=20 > The CL page gives a complete list of forms setf will work with. The > elisp page merely gives a list, without it being clear whether that list > is complete or not. Good summary. FWIW, I agree. It's about `setf', in particular.