From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
To: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de>
Cc: 56974@debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>,
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: bug#56974: 29.0.50; Missing documentation for former subr-x macros
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 09:10:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87iln1sry9.fsf@posteo.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87fsi8re7l.fsf@web.de> (Michael Heerdegen's message of "Sun, 07 Aug 2022 04:15:42 +0200")
Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de> writes:
> Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
>
>> when-let is a 3:1 winner over when-let* in the Emacs tree, so I think
>> the public has spokeneth, and we should document when-let and not
>> when-let*. (And just pretend that when-let doesn't have the compat
>> forms in the manual.)
>
> Could be that most uses date from before the new names had been added.
> AFAIR using the * names was an agreement in some thread in the past -
> when this had been discussed the last time.
I could imagine this being the case, and from grepping through lisp/. I
also get the impression that people decide to use when-let vs. when-let*
the same way they would when choosing between let and let*, even though
both function more like let* than let. Making one "more official" by
documenting the less confusingly named alternatives seems like an
argument for the *'ed ones to me.
> Personally I don't care that much, both names are equally good (or bad).
> I would make them synonymous. Although when-let and and-let are already
> synonymous names...
What and-let are you referring to? All I can find is and-let*. Unless
I am missing something, I'd also argue that for the sake of consistency
documenting if-let* and when-let* would be preferable.
> Michael.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-09 9:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-04 13:06 bug#56974: 29.0.50; Missing documentation for former subr-x macros Philip Kaludercic
2022-08-04 13:22 ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-08-05 9:19 ` Philip Kaludercic
2022-08-05 12:01 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2022-08-06 1:45 ` Michael Heerdegen
2022-08-06 12:19 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2022-08-07 2:15 ` Michael Heerdegen
2022-08-07 12:51 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2022-08-09 9:10 ` Philip Kaludercic [this message]
2022-08-05 13:50 ` Po Lu via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87iln1sry9.fsf@posteo.net \
--to=philipk@posteo.net \
--cc=56974@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=larsi@gnus.org \
--cc=michael_heerdegen@web.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).