From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: /srv/bzr/emacs/trunk r112347: * doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi (defcustom, defun, simplified-beginning-of-buffer, defvar, Building Robots, Review, save-excursion): `defun' and `defcustom' are now macros rather than special forms. (Bug#13853) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:19:00 +0400 Message-ID: <517546D4.7030801@yandex.ru> References: <87obd8rnk1.fsf@yandex.ru> <9yli8bzriy.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1366640360 8236 80.91.229.3 (22 Apr 2013 14:19:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:19:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: xfq , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Leo Liu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 22 16:19:24 2013 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 1UUHaU-00016X-Pw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:19:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49132 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UUHaU-0007rk-CS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:19:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36589) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UUHaN-0007pU-S3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:19:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UUHaJ-0007wr-HW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:19:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-la0-x231.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::231]:52595) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UUHaE-0007ua-NW; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:19:06 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-la0-f49.google.com with SMTP id ei20so1590799lab.36 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:19:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=z9gq6yb0C6G3b7IrhnQ7RrLYqHNQmm/2FwTl2htYfDw=; b=FJcOLWpln9TPwOGFfBWNSZMMerxvD05rhcY5QrA2Emqy5Y40B0e1yd17MXFFsY/DaT MnlxwZMVwf9pJHKXRXCqnCpnI/h1H5hdsisZ3+tuGWjJ0qEI3TRTmcJrzePrS2inZ04x AOkpjNSWdOLAhjlT1jjNIuaugjukyXHTOQc3EkTXQNNAz4jDLQkJPQxTBvdxWpFL2SCY TyvKFJLCFj6aUA4qe2QydHE/tYY7gEzc1VaiiDyu89wAL0R5iXxAm4gr6FKlHxDmxcEy 0Sow49mz2b34aaePMDr52RzAk9bjK1S+8/JPUq0YMVNYQE0R1pHW/UCADgapfTx0vTnl qMXA== X-Received: by 10.112.76.163 with SMTP id l3mr12880969lbw.129.1366640345345; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([178.252.98.87]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id or9sm10624825lbb.8.2013.04.22.07.19.03 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:19:04 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130422-1, 22.04.2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c03::231 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:159111 Archived-At: On 22.04.2013 18:11, Leo Liu wrote: > On 2013-04-22 18:31 +0800, xfq wrote: >> Is this change appropriate: > > I think not. > > Whether a special form is implemented in c or lisp macro is > implementation details. I think it is best to revert your change and fix > the one sentence about "special form" instead. Which sentence? Every hunk in that changeset contains the words "special form". Most of the discussion here had to do with whether any Elisp macro can be called a special form. Apparently not: ELISP> (special-form-p 'let) t ELISP> (special-form-p 'defun) nil --Dmitry