From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jonas Bernoulli Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [elpa] externals/transient 601ebf5: Quote value of slots' :initform when defining classes Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:28:45 +0200 Message-ID: <877dis7v42.fsf@bernoul.li> References: <20210616223737.22754.44375@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20210616223740.0905E209AB@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="38628"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 17 10:31:57 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ltnRN-0009rO-1f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:31:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38678 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ltnRL-0000Da-Df for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 04:31:55 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43724) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ltnOR-0007ux-QH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 04:28:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.hostpark.net ([212.243.197.30]:34968) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ltnOP-0000Ce-HM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 04:28:55 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hostpark.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D306165EB; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:28:48 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bernoul.li; h= content-type:content-type:mime-version:message-id:date:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:subject:from:from:received :received; s=sel2011a; t=1623918526; bh=uIaL6USs+4QUPsCNMRY0mkbh Lw3pjXyYTC/61XI0m30=; b=kozmQOy/qlNerYAobXkB0E4Cp2IM3c+zSGszsQou 0wPc/g4Xfl+fleDQqeML1FHUbD8gBKOhhH2Q93FkFgEaOke+KMUR31/Qo98o4jfl aexh76zAAQtOz2860Njo/euzH8Geupgn9RTqGu6qQko4qiAtfszOkeuZkSJSjzsW 4/k= X-Virus-Scanned: by Hostpark/NetZone Mailprotection at hostpark.net Original-Received: from mail.hostpark.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail0.hostpark.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10224) with ESMTP id mLuv8stMmO0c; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:28:46 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hostpark.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36766165C3; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:28:46 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: none client-ip=212.243.197.30; envelope-from=jonas@bernoul.li; helo=mail.hostpark.net X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:270880 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: > Jonas Bernoulli [2021-06-16 18:37:39] wrote: >> The behavior of `:initform' changes in Emacs 28: > > Actually, the behavior did not change. What changed is that we now emit > a warning about those `:initform`s which behave differently in EIEIO > than in CLOS (with the intention to align the behavior with CLOS in > some future version because that behavior is simpler/cleaner). Right. I didn't word that carefully.