From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#52063: 28.0.60; Confusing presentation of lambda Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 14:09:25 +0100 Message-ID: <87zgpse60q.fsf@gnus.org> References: <83czmqaegb.fsf@gnu.org> <874k82vwe5.fsf@gnus.org> <831r35afde.fsf@gnu.org> <87v90hu36b.fsf@gnus.org> <83v90h8zjw.fsf@gnu.org> <87r1b5u1cl.fsf@gnus.org> <83pmqp8vps.fsf@gnu.org> <83zgpt7353.fsf@gnu.org> <83tug172a9.fsf@gnu.org> <664b6d0147ece2617779@heytings.org> <87pmqotxxd.fsf@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="9796"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Gregory Heytings , fgunbin@fastmail.fm, Stefan Monnier , 52063@debbugs.gnu.org To: Michael Heerdegen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 25 14:10:15 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 1mqEVz-0002Jm-3u for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 14:10:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33152 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mqEVy-0005od-2r for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 08:10:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34312) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mqEVm-0005lp-MZ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 08:10:06 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:44601) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mqEVm-00030b-Ec for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 08:10:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mqEVm-0001ju-A8 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 08:10:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 13:10:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 52063 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 52063-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B52063.16378457816649 (code B ref 52063); Thu, 25 Nov 2021 13:10:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 52063) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Nov 2021 13:09:41 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56147 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mqEVR-0001jB-3Q for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 08:09:41 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:39998) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mqEVP-0001ix-Bz for 52063@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 08:09:40 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=1eKdW3zlcaekWgPmcws8WfUzKaHvebyl6DFLHcbIauA=; b=uyJyyGZ7WYrrbweATQtrwA7WLE m42kdmkIX4pbrlnAsYi1by1BFYeqAn+tBaoBVChov+MuYxbF2nPDl9+Y79FcvcPwxx/EQhIDMokZr ISMbRXzET8qCdrg1BR2niwLE7xVAqsXcKaDIB9im3pg9MAntOmRtnobmatF1mM+/rt+Q=; Original-Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mqEVD-0003hn-As; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 14:09:30 +0100 Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwAgMAAAAqbBEUAAAABGdBTUEAALGPC/xhBQAAACBj SFJNAAB6JgAAgIQAAPoAAACA6AAAdTAAAOpgAAA6mAAAF3CculE8AAAADFBMVEUECRYkP1l5orj/ //+sHS1BAAAAAWJLR0QDEQxM8gAAAAd0SU1FB+ULGQw7GPZYh58AAAFeSURBVCjPZdFBa8IwFAfw F9GCnjy0gv0Ag+1TZKDCPD0lCWvPrcx8CtlhsJsFI8zTDq0s+ZR7SaMM9i7tj4THe//AFGLV7QTu VYskfBkKgO7UI4NkAebE/P+wAnYC1WPUcHiD5DTwmCmDexj0yEtnNCSH0ODJUd2g/2N2CBO4iHEP ZTXow9wP42wmc2b5a0D3nOal5RVh4My1LqzmSEjci+6c2fewY2q+rBjvMdF21WNiITm7SwoeeQuz TtuIb9pNWwwoj8A2TkagRxGusYL6rwzBJyClgHUjQ5qTL23wERcpUDo5LdNZoOMbuo3rYTUBTUTu mk7s2pBam8nGoN6HPAU1l0IV4QkwkyhRlQFSMK64WvvRRjQaYfuBEZiJ7XsE4LzbnU14UIDpw8/1 0/kVfHa7YrN0/l4V+kOqeQCFlEllIxDySx0BAmarbO9B+9L+w0xF+EJ2vIPBHwBnx19TzH+DE4Aj WAAAACV0RVh0ZGF0ZTpjcmVhdGUAMjAyMS0xMS0yNVQxMjo1OToyNCswMDowMMEvBCYAAAAldEVY dGRhdGU6bW9kaWZ5ADIwMjEtMTEtMjVUMTI6NTk6MjQrMDA6MDCwcryaAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC X-Now-Playing: Namasenda's _Unlimited Ammo - Infinity_: "=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=98=86?= (Feat. Oklou)" In-Reply-To: <87pmqotxxd.fsf@web.de> (Michael Heerdegen's message of "Thu, 25 Nov 2021 09:57:34 +0100") 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:220822 Archived-At: Michael Heerdegen writes: > Gregory Heytings writes: > >> AFAIU, the fundamental question here is: is "(closure (t) args body)" >> different in any way from "(lambda args body)"? If not, is there a >> good reason to use a "(closure (t)" instead of a "(lambda"? > > This is my question, too. But not only: any anonymous function that > doesn't reference any part of its environment could (?) also be > represented as a lambda list. With other words: only "real" closures > would be represented as (closure ...). That would make inspection of > values and things like debugging easier. A closure has lexical binding inside itself, though, which lambdas do not have. So checking for an empty lexical environment isn't sufficient to decide whether to try to convert back to a lambda or not -- you have to do some deep inspection. (See code snippet that demonstrates the issue in an earlier post of mine.) -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no