From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luc Teirlinck Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Another bug with the macro counter Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:13:19 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <200410302313.i9UNDJR03798@raven.dms.auburn.edu> References: <200410210107.i9L176B10842@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200410300238.i9U2cOD02290@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200410300327.i9U3RWW02355@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200410301419.i9UEJr002854@raven.dms.auburn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1099178054 12544 80.91.229.6 (30 Oct 2004 23:14:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:14:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 31 01:14:00 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CO2Q4-0005D6-00 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 01:14:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CO2Xz-0006I4-Cd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:22:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CO2Xp-0006GJ-DZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:22:01 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CO2Xo-0006Fd-Me for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:22:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CO2Xo-0006De-1m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:22:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [131.204.53.104] (helo=manatee.dms.auburn.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CO2Pa-0002OH-P7; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:13:30 -0400 Original-Received: from raven.dms.auburn.edu (raven.dms.auburn.edu [131.204.53.29]) by manatee.dms.auburn.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9UNDUFu000285; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:13:30 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by raven.dms.auburn.edu (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) id i9UNDJR03798; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:13:19 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.dms.auburn.edu: teirllm set sender to teirllm@dms.auburn.edu using -f Original-To: dak@gnu.org In-reply-to: (message from David Kastrup on Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:06:53 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:29199 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:29199 David Kastrup wrote: (eval-when-compile (defvar edebug-active)) Stefan can clarify, but I understood his objection as meaning that if somebody later added a function that assumed that `edebug-active' was defined, then the compiler would no longer warn about that. It does not look as if the `eval-when-compile' would change anything about that. Of course, even though (if (boundp 'edebug-active) edebug-active) is equivalent in its effects to (and (boundp 'edebug-active) edebug-active) it seems stylistically inferior, since it makes the intent and logical structure less clear, especially as it interacts with `or'. It seems that we can not win on both counts. In the latest patch I sent, I followed Stefan's suggestion but put in a comment. But I do not really have any strong opinion on the subject. Sincerely, Luc.