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: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:24:22 +0000 Message-ID: <20151214202422.GA3687@acm.fritz.box> References: <20151211161116.GA8923@apertron.net> <20151213121315.GA2680@acm.fritz.box> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1450124593 19548 80.91.229.3 (14 Dec 2015 20:23:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:23:13 +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 Mon Dec 14 21:22:59 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 1a8Ze2-0007kq-M6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:22:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33740 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a8Ze2-00008N-02 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:22:54 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48924) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a8ZdU-0008Ec-PX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:22:21 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a8ZdR-0006E3-Hw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:22:20 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.muc.de ([193.149.48.3]:32772) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a8ZdR-0006DF-8y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:22:17 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 68968 invoked by uid 3782); 14 Dec 2015 20:22:15 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p5B147358.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [91.20.115.88]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:22:12 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 7485 invoked by uid 1000); 14 Dec 2015 20:24:22 -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:196262 Archived-At: Hello, John. On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:23:38AM -0800, John Wiegley wrote: > >>>>> Alan Mackenzie writes: > > Just as a matter of interest, > > (let ((foo) ... ) ...) > > is accepted by the interpreter and byte compiler, binding foo to nil. > In the spirit of our recent clarifications, I think it should also be made an > error, rather than an implicit binding to nil. I should have checked before writing my last contribution, but (let ((foo) ...) ...) is actually documented as permissible in the Elisp manual. That weakens considerably the case for making it invalid. > I have a feeling there are still many more places where this behavior exists, > and we are just beginning to scratch the surface. For example: > (dolist ((i)) (message "Hello")) > Is also accepted as a "do nothing" block, when it should give an error about a > missing value. Outch, that's confusing. > -- > John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F > http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2 -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).