From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unary / Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:54:47 +0200 Message-ID: <87h9lswdmg.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87pp0gweri.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <22047.37539.943171.429065@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444910210 8071 80.91.229.3 (15 Oct 2015 11:56:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:56:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 15 13:56:47 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 1Zmh9K-0004ZV-Lh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:56:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47050 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zmh9J-0003BR-PW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 07:56:45 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40232) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zmh7R-0002IV-Mz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 07:54:50 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zmh7Q-0005N4-In for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 07:54:49 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:47670) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zmh7Q-0005Mu-Fr; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 07:54:48 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33256 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1Zmh7Q-0004W0-0L; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 07:54:48 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5F682DF4F5; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:54:47 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <22047.37539.943171.429065@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> (Stephen J. Turnbull's message of "Thu, 15 Oct 2015 20:48:51 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:191631 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > David Kastrup writes: > > > In Elisp, (/ 2.0) returns 2.0. In Common Lisp > > > > (and in Scheme), this returns 0.5. > > Also in XEmacs (/ 2.0) =3D> 0.5. Just a bug in Emacs, I bet. Hardly a bug since it matches the function DOC: / is a built-in function in =E2=80=98src/data.c=E2=80=99. (/ DIVIDEND &rest DIVISORS) Return first argument divided by all the remaining arguments. The arguments must be numbers or markers. [back] > So I guess the Common Lisp behavior isn't particularly useful, either > or somebody would have reported sooner. :-) At least it's a good data point that XEmacs has it the other way round. That suggests that at least packages common to both Emacsen do not rely on either definition in important code. That makes it more of a temptation to change it after all this time. --=20 David Kastrup