From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Leo Liu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs-diffstrunk r117127: * emacs-lisp/cl-lib.el (cl-endp): Conform to CL's semantics. Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 19:11:27 +0800 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1400584333 16359 80.91.229.3 (20 May 2014 11:12:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 11:12:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 20 13:12:06 2014 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 1Wmhxm-0007MZ-1I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 20 May 2014 13:12:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52459 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wmhxl-0001Dj-Au for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 20 May 2014 07:12:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43316) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wmhxa-0001DN-9V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 May 2014 07:12:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WmhxR-0006H5-4M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 May 2014 07:11:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pb0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c01::235]:49263) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WmhxQ-0006GZ-Ub; Tue, 20 May 2014 07:11:45 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id md12so227560pbc.26 for ; Tue, 20 May 2014 04:11:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:face:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=ATJaeC5SjEtltsBzeCbjQGGRvry5FCBNpT3zk9HVnKc=; b=o6rmHiANAVBTHBo/+mJWSrxtiFFHoSf4nXqfGbbawS1jGFas+IEs6PAHLwzgFgXKUs CdvT9Smfu656zsb9/D8ab+SdKCFiJwceEdHCP3xBqv3SK4JPy0gW7Dg1U2TxM/T2iN2l a6JuuSKiI/SAmsKVVY3s1iRJfNU6bC5Fk5PPH4+kA7iKdujV6JqR/3hxkmDo52ru/chk IwXUPJoQC8svgAKD4Ltua43YdcXBEHOBXsDEjl6H5hvbsQhJFhtTuho1VMDa7NSiJv7v oKFE5dnlfLxxrq4wOHl4MI6XRym5vFtPulkt20s0ABacy/SsxCJuPRsQiJIR4S7chQbN Ajdw== X-Received: by 10.68.221.161 with SMTP id qf1mr49789570pbc.10.1400584303246; Tue, 20 May 2014 04:11:43 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from fortuna ([123.119.82.236]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id or4sm2638471pbb.17.2014.05.20.04.11.40 for (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 20 May 2014 04:11:42 -0700 (PDT) Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAACgAAAAoAgMAAADxkFD+AAAADFBMVEUvT09qWs3/pQD///+J kUVcAAAAAWJLR0QAiAUdSAAAAAlwSFlzAAALEwAACxMBAJqcGAAAAAd0SU1FB9cBBwMLOd3veKQA AACuSURBVBjTldE9CgIxEAXgB+lEyFUC2wo5ikdZ8DSypxhMY7H9VuIVwlqkGRgnm59VsHGafIQ3 CZlAtmKIRaHETgYa12lqvEsPYKf8wXHsPGfqPaUM0g9aJPKFXkmNQmSDqwzz4Fpgpz+6WAPY2z5o uPJJpu0uypcl4nyCibMLQ8lCiVjayLoQvw5LsVKQuHPRR958HZbOcVsKeepcLxpByjycGvnKmY+c MBvrtyjfe0vmuLvdq/kAAAAASUVORK5CYII= In-Reply-To: (Glenn Morris's message of "Mon, 19 May 2014 15:16:56 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (CentOS 6.5) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c01::235 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:171946 Archived-At: On 2014-05-19 15:16 -0400, Glenn Morris wrote: > Please could you update doc/misc/cl.texi as needed (in section 10.1 and > Appendix A2). > > (Since it would have been easy to make this change at any time, you have > to wonder if there was a reason for implementing it the way it was > originally done. Perhaps appendix A2 explains it.) Thanks. I wondered though not in public. I have updated the doc to reflect the change and now the category of incompatibility is looser syntax. Leo