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: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:52:01 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <200410311852.i9VIq1105788@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 1099248811 10197 80.91.229.6 (31 Oct 2004 18:53:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:53:31 +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 19:53:23 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 1COKpO-0005Th-00 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:53:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1COKxM-0003Jd-AV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:01:36 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1COKx9-0003Iv-K8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:01:23 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1COKx8-0003IY-Ha for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:01:22 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1COKx8-0003ID-68 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:01:22 -0500 Original-Received: from [131.204.53.104] (helo=manatee.dms.auburn.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1COKoI-0008Q5-OG; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:52:14 -0500 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 i9VIqEFu004088; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:52:14 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by raven.dms.auburn.edu (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) id i9VIq1105788; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:52:01 -0600 (CST) 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 Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:36:17 +0100) 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:29238 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:29238 David Kastrup wrote: Mea culpa. Is there any intended effect of (defvar foo) then apart from silencing the byte compiler? I believe that it is the express purpose of (defvar foo) to make clear, to humans and to programs, that the defvar is only there to silence the compiler and that the real defvar is elsewhere. I believe that a computer silencing defvar should never specify a value and a real defvar always should. Sincerely, Luc.