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: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 07:52:40 -0800 Message-ID: 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> <877hl2a0zs.fsf@gmail.com><83lj9iv0dg.fsf@gnu.org> <8739vq9td1.fsf@gmail.com><83iq4mup8h.fsf@gnu.org> <87y6dhabrm.fsf@lion.rapttech.com.au> 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 1291900960 13626 80.91.229.12 (9 Dec 2010 13:22:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 13:22:40 +0000 (UTC) To: "'Tim X'" , Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 09 14:22:35 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 1PQgSB-0003b8-Az for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:22:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39996 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQgSA-00017N-0I for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Dec 2010 08:22:34 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=34666 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQMg1-0006zH-Ag for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:15:34 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQMfy-0003zT-Uf for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:15:31 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:39835) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQMfy-0003zG-T4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:15:30 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PQMEQ-000498-56; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:47:02 -0500 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: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:47:02 +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 submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.129182322115932 (code B ref -1); Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:47:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Dec 2010 15:47:01 +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 1PQMEP-00048u-2J for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:47:01 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PQMEL-00048i-RF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:46:58 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQMK6-0007VB-SF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:52:55 -0500 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]:41262) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQMK6-0007V6-OU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:52:54 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49249 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQMK5-0008RJ-GL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:52:54 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQMK4-0007UI-KX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:52:53 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:32678) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQMK4-0007Tt-FB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:52:52 -0500 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id oB8FqnrR004270 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:52:50 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id oB8BvItK005933; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:52:46 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt010.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 856490751291823562; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:52:42 -0800 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.245.200) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:52:41 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <87y6dhabrm.fsf@lion.rapttech.com.au> Thread-Index: AcuW6Qs4j3JtkMeAQGegpBsftmacmQABOguw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:47:02 -0500 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:42333 Archived-At: > But I thought that was what the discussion was about i.e. > BODY == FORM..... > but BODY... is equal to multiple 'bodies' which is not > what is meant. > > I prefer BODY rather than BODY..., but think the CL FORM* is > the clearer when you want to indicate one or more forms. Caveat: I haven't been following this thread lately (guess I gave up), so I might be misunderstanding what is said here. If I understand correctly, then yes, that is what this bug report is about (I filed it). And yes, the Common Lisp doc is *much* clearer in this regard. For one thing, it actually _defines_ the syntax constructs it uses. But I don't think the point of this bug report will ever be successfully communicated to those who are in a position to fix this.