lexical/static let-closure now reachable from interactive spec!

lexical/static let-closure now reachable from interactive spec!

[Emanuel Berg]

They say this should now be possible! With no complains from
the byte-compiler ...

That means one can have the same defaults for the interactive
spec but also "from Lisp" without having that hard-coded.

Ain't it cool stuff!

(require 'cl-lib)

(let ((min-def 0)
      (max-def 9)
      (inc-def 1) )
  (defun interval (&optional min max inc)
    (interactive (list (read-number "min: " min-def)
                       (read-number "max: " max-def)
                       (read-number "inc: " inc-def)) )
    (or min (setq min min-def))
    (or max (setq max max-def))
    (or inc (setq inc inc-def))
    (unless (<= min max)
      (error "Bogus interval") )
    (unless (> inc 0)
      (error "Bogus increment") )
    (cl-loop for i from min to max by inc collect i) )
  (declare-function interval nil) )

;; (interval 10 5)        ; Bogus interval
;; (interval 1 3 -1)      ; Bogus increment
;; (interval 5 10)        ; (5 6 7 8 9 10)
;; (interval 1.8 2.0 0.1) ; (1.8 1.9000000000000001 2.0)
;; (interval)             ; (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)
;; (interval 19 99)       ; (19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ...)

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

`declare-function' not needed anymore? (was: Re: lexical/static let-closure now reachable from interactive spec!)

[Emanuel Berg]

> (require 'cl-lib)
>
> (let ((min-def 0)
>       (max-def 9)
>       (inc-def 1) )
>   (defun interval (&optional min max inc)
>     (interactive (list (read-number "min: " min-def)
>                        (read-number "max: " max-def)
>                        (read-number "inc: " inc-def)) )
>     (or min (setq min min-def))
>     (or max (setq max max-def))
>     (or inc (setq inc inc-def))
>     (unless (<= min max)
>       (error "Bogus interval") )
>     (unless (> inc 0)
>       (error "Bogus increment") )
>     (cl-loop for i from min to max by inc collect i) )
>   (declare-function interval nil) )

I think that `declare-function' is also not needed anymore?

It's there to shut the byte-compiler up that the function
isn't known to be defined, but now it doesn't say that so the
ugly `declare-function' (even more so with the trailing nil)
can be removed ...

Only 33 places to do that for me ...

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: `declare-function' not needed anymore?

[Stefan Monnier]

> I think that `declare-function' is also not needed anymore?

No, it's still needed :-(


        Stefan