From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kelly Dean Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] (Updated) Run hook when variable is set Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:35:14 +0000 Message-ID: References: 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 1424342216 22110 80.91.229.3 (19 Feb 2015 10:36:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:36:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 19 11:36:43 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 1YOOTK-0002Z3-Vu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:36:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55675 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YOOTJ-0008EH-1m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:36:41 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40097) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YOOTF-0008E7-AS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:36:38 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YOOTB-0003kJ-Ah for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:36:37 -0500 Original-Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::197]:56456) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YOOTB-0003jT-5U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:36:33 -0500 Original-Received: from mfilter20-d.gandi.net (mfilter20-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.148]) by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9E6841C28C; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:36:32 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter20-d.gandi.net Original-Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.197]) by mfilter20-d.gandi.net (mfilter20-d.gandi.net [10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UqxERgz7ftrM; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:36:31 +0100 (CET) X-Originating-IP: 66.220.3.179 Original-Received: from localhost (gm179.geneticmail.com [66.220.3.179]) (Authenticated sender: kelly@prtime.org) by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45F5041C1A0; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:36:29 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4b98:c:538::197 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:183289 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier wrote: > Where does the manual say such a thing? Er, it seems it doesn't. ;-) It says =E2=80=9Fvoid=E2=80=9D, not =E2=80=9F= unbound=E2=80=9D. Except in just one place (17.2.7, (elisp) Trapping Erro= rs) where it has =E2=8C=9Cunbound variable=E2=8C=9D to mean void variable= . I was fooled by the void value being named Qunbound. > AFAICT this absurd concept > comes from your interpretation of what's going on, and just shows that > your interpretation is not a good model. Regardless of the name, the interpretation is the right one for multi-thr= eaded code, and is just as valid as the alternative for single-threaded c= ode. >> Either way, the behavior of makunbound is wrong. > > You've said so enough times, but I haven't heard any concrete > alternative proposal so far. Oh, I thought that was clear. Have makunbound signal an error if let_shad= ows_global_binding_p or Flocal_variable_p is true. My theory is that this= would only catch bugs, not catch intentional uses. > Not that I'd advise you to spend time on > it, since this is a complete non-problem as far as I'm concerned. Understood. > I see you decided to use a special (uninterned symbol) value instead. > That's OK with me. Ok, I'll have an updated and hopefully finalized patch shortly. > This operator has 0 cost since any decent compiler will just swap the > two branches of the `if' instead of performing an actual `not' computat= ion. Duh, oops. Well, =E2=8C=9Cvetted=E2=8C=9D works just as well as =E2=8C=9Cwritable=E2= =8C=9D for the field name, so I'm inclined to leave it that way, but I'll= change it if you want.