From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#8711: 24.0.50; binding _ to unused values with lexical-binding Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 21:56:43 -0300 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1306198631 32226 80.91.229.12 (24 May 2011 00:57:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 00:57:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 8711@debbugs.gnu.org To: Helmut Eller Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 24 02:57:07 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QOfvl-0006Ul-Fi for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 02:57:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48346 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QOfvl-0000lX-4A for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 23 May 2011 20:57:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38137) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QOfvj-0000lS-59 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 23 May 2011 20:57:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QOfvi-0000Ok-CF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 23 May 2011 20:57:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:60274) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QOfvi-0000Oe-AQ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 23 May 2011 20:57:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QOfvh-0001QS-TQ; Mon, 23 May 2011 20:57:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 00:57:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8711 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 8711-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B8711.13061986145462 (code B ref 8711); Tue, 24 May 2011 00:57:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8711) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 May 2011 00:56:54 +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 1QOfvZ-0001Q3-Aj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 May 2011 20:56:53 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QOfvX-0001Ps-NO for 8711@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 May 2011 20:56:52 -0400 Original-Received: from 213-159-126-200.fibertel.com.ar ([200.126.159.213]:45003 helo=ceviche.home) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QOfvS-0004kd-1a; Mon, 23 May 2011 20:56:46 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id DB015662FB; Mon, 23 May 2011 21:56:43 -0300 (ART) In-Reply-To: (Helmut Eller's message of "Mon, 23 May 2011 22:16:22 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 20:57:01 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:46672 Archived-At: >> It can insert (ignore nil) instead which should have the same effect but >> without triggering the other warning with lexical-binding. > Indeed. But I quickly run into another case where that doesn't help: > (defun foo (x) (destructuring-bind (y &rest _) x y)) I don't see any warning for this code. What warning do you get? > The semantic of loop (in Common Lisp) allows both variants. So the > "portable" idiom is "collect (let ((value value)) (lambda () value))". Interesting. I didn't think they'd accept the alternate semantic, which is clearly less useful and less efficient at the same time (tho maybe there are implementation strategies that may not make it that much less efficient). Stefan