From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: (declare (debug 0)) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:33:34 -0400 Message-ID: References: <54799.1634707328@pental> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2142"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stephen Gildea Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 20 14:34:56 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 1mdAo3-0000Kp-Vu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 14:34:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47948 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mdAo1-0000Tb-Jg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:34:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48998) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mdAmv-00076i-8n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:33:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:7343) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mdAmq-0008WR-PG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:33:43 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C7BD0440A9F; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:33:37 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 40B09440900; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:33:36 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1634733216; bh=0FE9HlXZWJEt+ZJw7kTexLLx5ot70K+nPpypo1WeBoA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=diZYLpNGmZh40bTgsk8EE/CMYEBP4Y5eNGWTgGrkCcsUTwXiqYPqWNBmCCTOmARZB jMcLjkTkyhCJX93waJxFwLrwmsthbifFKWQ2jpg75mVvJFF8A4F2lTPcylz/IaLWbC 6fDqjsBJXWA2QmtmEffENRV4TF6ppkKg3S4Hd5hEXYp0vrUZcRCDtwy7GqTDIu3v4U B1OCvGA3Mh0diNjcLyD4hm40XJAbKaa+vwjbT1mjrEd2EqUprdAYC5hWX4UHGH/AkU lCjHHEXg9v7DHJM+To141aPw3ahC852YMb3u3iNRTGhnEdue0TktO5zVCCulmRPmlX wyTC4oSqv33OQ== Original-Received: from ceviche (unknown [45.72.241.23]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F95012040A; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:33:36 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <54799.1634707328@pental> (Stephen Gildea's message of "Tue, 19 Oct 2021 22:22:08 -0700") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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:277438 Archived-At: Stephen Gildea [2021-10-19 22:22:08] wrote: > Stefan Monnier wrote: >> I must say I [had] no idea that 0 was supposed to be treated specially. >> >> I would have written (&rest sexp) instead, tho more likely I would have >> written nothing at all and relies on the default behavior of Edebug.... > > If even you didn't know about (debug 0), it sounds like I should update > the manual to recommend (debug nil) instead. > > I do like the idea of offering (continuing to offer) a simple shorthand > that says "do not instrument args", even though that is the default and > is rarely used in current code. Adding an explicit declaration saves > later readers/maintainers of a macro definition from having to figure > out whether a "debug" declaration is missing. In my experience, macros whose args should not be instrumented are not the most common, by far, and (&rest sexp) is sufficiently short and clear for them. I don't see any need to have something shorter. Stefan