From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Phil Sainty Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#49116: 28.0.50; Why `bound-and-true-p' is not working in lexical binding? Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 01:13:22 +1200 Message-ID: <80a8a99b4e90c7508a88bb3b98f8545a@webmail.orcon.net.nz> References: <861r8yozg5.fsf@protected.rcdrun.com> <3157c274e97fc9db7ceb345ba020f74b@webmail.orcon.net.nz> <83lf76vwt8.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30889"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Orcon Webmail Cc: 49116@debbugs.gnu.org, bugs@gnu.support To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 19 15:14:10 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1luana-0007uh-6J for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2021 15:14:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58600 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1luanY-0000Ss-81 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2021 09:14:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39294) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1luanT-0000SU-6S for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2021 09:14:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:47220) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1luanS-0003gF-GP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2021 09:14:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1luanS-000233-9E for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2021 09:14:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Phil Sainty Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2021 13:14:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 49116 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 49116-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B49116.16241084067813 (code B ref 49116); Sat, 19 Jun 2021 13:14:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 49116) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jun 2021 13:13:26 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58766 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1luams-00021w-En for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2021 09:13:26 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp-4.orcon.net.nz ([60.234.4.59]:33815) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1luamr-00021p-12 for 49116@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2021 09:13:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [10.253.37.70] (port=34397 helo=webmail.orcon.net.nz) by smtp-4.orcon.net.nz with esmtpa (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1luamp-00075B-1A; Sun, 20 Jun 2021 01:13:23 +1200 Original-Received: from ip-116-251-162-85.kinect.net.nz ([116.251.162.85]) via [10.253.37.253] by webmail.orcon.net.nz with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Sun, 20 Jun 2021 01:13:22 +1200 In-Reply-To: <83lf76vwt8.fsf@gnu.org> X-Sender: psainty@orcon.net.nz X-GeoIP: -- X-Spam_score: -2.9 X-Spam_score_int: -28 X-Spam_bar: -- X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:208729 Archived-At: On 2021-06-20 00:54, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Should this be mentioned in the doc string of bound-and-true-p? It wouldn't hurt, and I see that `boundp' has such a note: "Note that if `lexical-binding' is in effect, this refers to the global value outside of any lexical scope." That same text could be used. If the confusion is over whether function arguments are dynamic or lexical then the doc change might not explain things, but it would probably hint at the source of the confusion. -Phil