From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix (letrec ((ignore))) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 12:13:15 +0000 Message-ID: <20151213121315.GA2680@acm.fritz.box> References: <20151211161116.GA8923@apertron.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1450008690 16922 80.91.229.3 (13 Dec 2015 12:11:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 12:11:30 +0000 (UTC) To: Kaushal Modi , Zack Piper , Artur Malabarba , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Aur=E9lien?= Aptel , Emacs developers Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 13 13:11:21 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1a85Uk-0001km-Qs for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 13:11:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54876 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a85Uk-0000OP-7K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:11:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46873) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a85Uf-0000Nq-RI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:11:15 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a85Uc-00053H-Kz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:11:13 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.muc.de ([193.149.48.3]:18999) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a85Uc-00052I-Cm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:11:10 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 75255 invoked by uid 3782); 13 Dec 2015 12:11:08 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p579E846D.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [87.158.132.109]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 13:11:06 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 2791 invoked by uid 1000); 13 Dec 2015 12:13:15 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 9.x X-Received-From: 193.149.48.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:196206 Archived-At: Hello, John. On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 03:10:05PM -0800, John Wiegley wrote: > >>>>> Kaushal Modi writes: > > Would it be better instead to fix the org-mode files for consistency? > > - Replace all instances of > > (letrec ((SOMEVAR)) ..) > > with > > (letrec ((SOMEVAR nil)) ..) > (letrec ((SOMEVAR))) should be an error, since the value is missing. If one > wishes to declare SOMEVAR with a nil value, the correct forms are: > (letrec ((SOMEVAR nil))) > (letrec (SOMEVAR)) > > Question to emacs-devel: What would be the right approach? > We should give `letrec' the same treatment we've given to `setq' and `setf', > and then Org and other users should be corrected. Just as a matter of interest, (let ((foo) ... ) ...) is accepted by the interpreter and byte compiler, binding foo to nil. Should we make that form invalid, too? > -- > John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F > http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2 -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).