Re: master 42950e9: Fix a few Edebug specifications where code is wrapped in lambdas.

Re: master 42950e9: Fix a few Edebug specifications where code is wrapped in lambdas.

[Stefan Monnier]

>     Fix a few Edebug specifications where code is wrapped in lambdas.
>     
>     As the Info node `(elisp) Specification List' explains, it is not
>     correct to use `body' or t for a piece of code that the macro wraps in
>     a `lambda' form.  These should use `def-body' instead.

There is a slight misunderstanding here: if the end behavior is the same
as what could happen without a lambda, then there's no need to use
`def-body`.

The use `def-body` is only needed if it's possible to enter this code
from non-instrumented code (e.g. when the lambda is passed to
`run-with-timer`).

In the case of `displaying-byte-compile-warnings`, for example, there is
no need for `def-body`.


        Stefan

Re: master 42950e9: Fix a few Edebug specifications where code is wrapped in lambdas.

[Emanuel Berg via Emacs development discussions.]

Stefan Monnier wrote:

> The use `def-body` is only needed if it's possible to enter
> this code from non-instrumented code (e.g. when the lambda
> is passed to `run-with-timer`).

OK, that an example or the definition if I may?

'non-instrumented code', sounds cool anyway...

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

Re: master 42950e9: Fix a few Edebug specifications where code is wrapped in lambdas.

[Philipp]

> Am 22.05.2021 um 19:31 schrieb Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>:
> 
>>    Fix a few Edebug specifications where code is wrapped in lambdas.
>> 
>>    As the Info node `(elisp) Specification List' explains, it is not
>>    correct to use `body' or t for a piece of code that the macro wraps in
>>    a `lambda' form.  These should use `def-body' instead.
> 
> There is a slight misunderstanding here: if the end behavior is the same
> as what could happen without a lambda, then there's no need to use
> `def-body`.
> 
> The use `def-body` is only needed if it's possible to enter this code
> from non-instrumented code (e.g. when the lambda is passed to
> `run-with-timer`).
> 
> In the case of `displaying-byte-compile-warnings`, for example, there is
> no need for `def-body`.

Could you please clarify the manual then?  Right now it says:

    If your
    macro wraps the expression with ‘lambda’ before it is evaluated,
    use ‘def-form’ instead.