bug#15542: 24.3.50; doc strings: cl-flet, cl-labels

bug#15542: 24.3.50; doc strings: cl-flet, cl-labels

[Drew Adams]

The doc strings should _describe the macros_.
And that includes specifying each parameter.

In GNU Emacs 24.3.50.1 (i686-pc-mingw32)
 of 2013-09-30 on LEG570
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 `configure --enable-checking 'CFLAGS=-O0 -g3' CPPFLAGS=-DGLYPH_DEBUG=1'

bug#15542: 24.3.50; doc strings: cl-flet, cl-labels

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> The doc strings should _describe the macros_.
> And that includes specifying each parameter.

I don't really see how saying that "FUNC is a function" and "ARGLIST is
an argument list" really would help anybody.  Closing.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

bug#15542: 24.3.50; doc strings: cl-flet, cl-labels

[Drew Adams]

> > The doc strings should _describe the macros_.
> > And that includes specifying each parameter.
> 
> I don't really see how saying that "FUNC is a function"
> and "ARGLIST is an argument list" really would help anybody.
> Closing.

This is ridiculous.  There needs to be a description of
what these important macros are for or what their
parameters are.

Contrast this with pages of Common Lisp doc describing
every detail about them.

No, Emacs should not reproduce the Common Lisp doc.
That's not the point.  But it should give an overall
description that is better than what is there now.

And yes, each parameter should be described, including
BODY and FORM.

ARGLIST is not just "an argument list".  It is the
argument list for function FUNC (which should be called
FUNCTION).

Yes, when a parameter is named FUNCTION and its value
can be any function there is no need to also say that
the value is a function.  That much you got right.
Other than that (i.e., renaming the parameter to FUNCTION),
each of the other parameters needs to be described.

And the macros themselves need better descriptions.
"Temporary function bindings" is misleading in a couple
of ways, for instance.  Only one of them is that it is
not about _time_ when scoping is lexical.  It is better
(as was done for cl-flet) to speak of "local" rather
than "temporary".

The other is the ambiguity of the phrase "function
bindings" - that should be clarified to say bindings of
function names (symbols) to function definitions.

Or even better, just say what is said for cl-flet:
"make local function definitions" - no ambiguity about
what bindings are meant.

And what is this gobbledygook: "scoping is lexical,
but capturing them in closures will only work if
`lexical-binding' is in use."  What does "work" mean
here?  This is a description that only a mother could
love, i.e., it means something only to the person who
implemented the macro.

Tell us, if it is important, what lexical scoping is,
if bindings are not captured in closures that work.
And if it is not important then don't say it at all.