From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Wiegley Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix (letrec ((ignore))) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:25:09 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20151211161116.GA8923@apertron.net> <20151213121315.GA2680@acm.fritz.box> <20151214202422.GA3687@acm.fritz.box> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1450124912 24955 80.91.229.3 (14 Dec 2015 20:28:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:28:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Artur Malabarba , Zack Piper , Emacs developers , =?utf-8?Q?Aur=C3=A9lien?= Aptel , Kaushal Modi To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 14 21:28:23 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 1a8ZjI-0008VD-Kr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:28:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33762 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a8ZjI-0001BX-0m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:28:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50562) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a8Zj9-00017h-KP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:28:12 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a8Zj6-0007Ve-Cz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:28:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-pf0-x22b.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22b]:36799) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a8Zj6-0007VW-7h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:28:08 -0500 Original-Received: by pfbu66 with SMTP id u66so66726494pfb.3 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:28:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:date:message-id:references :user-agent:mail-followup-to:mime-version:content-type; bh=iyiWytYL7sYixFRZIyXV/a8MI3og/xZoLg3tCT33u2Q=; b=q7Q6rVE3lj7GDzlWxnskfmCOa1gQAUbtBRIx88AXQxt/m4QBUI3WM/8j9HfVTUIA8N V4aTndqr87Gl0emjrt9SIs/F9enYoZp45z3LL11Ai5V1kt3oUZoiCgQp8baQRpx5giJp G1xnRed5QYj+u4u/Ltsn9O51ysdUplmghGqN9UG6L8WicYahFzue8th5kErPNVv5IFHr 65yWKHbMNK42NlCteqSKwB1zvM4XT4DnccgmlUXOzQ2B+sU95iGvpRlXfYDD5ffr+mBt eTXHgUya9VDH1oPnQd+olZLeSDv8SVcICR8FBHg+gogJMjZxacL0E7zHyr8/6DZRzKxE NQzQ== X-Received: by 10.98.42.208 with SMTP id q199mr8984959pfq.1.1450124887676; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:28:07 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from Vulcan.local (76-234-68-79.lightspeed.frokca.sbcglobal.net. [76.234.68.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m70sm44203402pfi.65.2015.12.14.12.28.05 (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:28:06 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Original-From: "John Wiegley" Original-Received: by Vulcan.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 58B4D114FB6B8; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:28:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20151214202422.GA3687@acm.fritz.box> (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:24:22 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/24.5 (darwin) Mail-Followup-To: Alan Mackenzie , Kaushal Modi , Zack Piper , Artur Malabarba , =?utf-8?Q?Aur=C3=A9lien?= Aptel , Emacs developers X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22b 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:196263 Archived-At: >>>>> Alan Mackenzie writes: > I should have checked before writing my last contribution, but (let ((foo) > ...) ...) is actually documented as permissible in the Elisp manual. > That weakens considerably the case for making it invalid. Perhaps this is a bug both in the code and the manual? What say others? >> Is also accepted as a "do nothing" block, when it should give an error >> about a missing value. > Outch, that's confusing. Yes, I'd like to achieve consistency here, if it's not going to harm things. -- John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2