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#15542: 24.3.50; doc strings: cl-flet, cl-labels Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:04:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <12eb23ab-078e-4761-aa3e-b4c03be15253@default> <87ob2i6yfr.fsf@building.gnus.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1391915119 16020 80.91.229.3 (9 Feb 2014 03:05:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:05:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 15542@debbugs.gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 09 04:05:26 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WCKhw-0002As-W7 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 04:05:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48940 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCKhw-00056v-JB for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:05:24 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56932) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCKhj-00050I-8n for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:05:19 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCKha-0002El-Lc for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:05:11 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:44600) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCKha-0002EV-J1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:05:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCKha-0001hB-El for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:05:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 03:05:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 15542 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 15542-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B15542.13919150726438 (code B ref 15542); Sun, 09 Feb 2014 03:05:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 15542) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Feb 2014 03:04:32 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58612 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCKh5-0001fl-BR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:04:31 -0500 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:23225) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCKh3-0001fd-HW for 15542@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:04:30 -0500 Original-Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id s1934RRB019974 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:04:28 GMT Original-Received: from userz7022.oracle.com (userz7022.oracle.com [156.151.31.86]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s1934QnG015864 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:04:27 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0011.oracle.com (abhmp0011.oracle.com [141.146.116.17]) by userz7022.oracle.com (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s1934QRZ026515; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:04:26 GMT In-Reply-To: <87ob2i6yfr.fsf@building.gnus.org> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:85022 Archived-At: > > The doc strings should _describe the macros_. > > And that includes specifying each parameter. >=20 > 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.