Emacs documentation is bad

Emacs documentation is bad

[John Stone]

(
 (lambda (f)
   (lambda (x)
     (list f x)))
 'g)
'y
)

this crashes emacs but try to figure out why from docs and you're shit out
of luck and just wasted half a fucking day

Re: Emacs documentation is bad

[John Stone]

how fucking hard did you make this


(
 (
  (lambda (f)
    (lambda (x)
      (list f x)))
  'g
  )
 'y
 )


On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 6:46 PM John Stone <johnrstone2011@gmail.com> wrote:

> (
>  (lambda (f)
>    (lambda (x)
>      (list f x)))
>  'g)
> 'y
> )
>
> this crashes emacs but try to figure out why from docs and you're shit out
> of luck and just wasted half a fucking day
>

Re: Emacs documentation is bad

[John Stone]

lambda expression is a function which can appear wherever a function name
can appear? bullshit, delete the lies from the manual

On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM John Stone <johnrstone2011@gmail.com> wrote:

> how fucking hard did you make this
>
>
> (
>  (
>   (lambda (f)
>     (lambda (x)
>       (list f x)))
>   'g
>   )
>  'y
>  )
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 6:46 PM John Stone <johnrstone2011@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> (
>>  (lambda (f)
>>    (lambda (x)
>>      (list f x)))
>>  'g)
>> 'y
>> )
>>
>> this crashes emacs but try to figure out why from docs and you're shit
>> out of luck and just wasted half a fucking day
>>
>

Re: Emacs documentation is bad

[tomas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Sep 08, 2018 at 06:49:54PM -0700, John Stone wrote:
> lambda expression is a function which can appear wherever a function name
> can appear? bullshit, delete the lies from the manual
> 
> On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM John Stone <johnrstone2011@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > how fucking hard did you make this
> >
> >
> > (
> >  (
> >   (lambda (f)
> >     (lambda (x)
> >       (list f x)))
> >   'g
> >   )
> >  'y
> >  )
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 6:46 PM John Stone <johnrstone2011@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> (
> >>  (lambda (f)
> >>    (lambda (x)
> >>      (list f x)))
> >>  'g)
> >> 'y
> >> )
> >>
> >> this crashes emacs but try to figure out why from docs and you're shit
> >> out of luck and just wasted half a fucking day

What is your problem? None of those things "crashes" Emacs. The first
one has one parenthesis too much, in the second one you're trying
to apply something to 'y which is not a function (the symbol 'g).

Look, if you were a tad nicer, I'd try to help you, but the way you
are yelling around, I don't really feel like it.

Cheers
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAluVIWQACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYtiQCfZMLb/wMUGfg9BYYMvm3GC87e
fgUAnjFKehh1ZMFXZezxOPwKcZDrdQWf
=jLBn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Emacs documentation is bad

[John Stone]

> I'd try to help you, but the way you are yelling around, I don't really
feel like it.

don't fix the broken the docs then, we'll use a different lisp for this
project

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 6:34 AM <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, Sep 08, 2018 at 06:49:54PM -0700, John Stone wrote:
> > lambda expression is a function which can appear wherever a function name
> > can appear? bullshit, delete the lies from the manual
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM John Stone <johnrstone2011@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > how fucking hard did you make this
> > >
> > >
> > > (
> > >  (
> > >   (lambda (f)
> > >     (lambda (x)
> > >       (list f x)))
> > >   'g
> > >   )
> > >  'y
> > >  )
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 6:46 PM John Stone <johnrstone2011@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> (
> > >>  (lambda (f)
> > >>    (lambda (x)
> > >>      (list f x)))
> > >>  'g)
> > >> 'y
> > >> )
> > >>
> > >> this crashes emacs but try to figure out why from docs and you're shit
> > >> out of luck and just wasted half a fucking day
>
> What is your problem? None of those things "crashes" Emacs. The first
> one has one parenthesis too much, in the second one you're trying
> to apply something to 'y which is not a function (the symbol 'g).
>
> Look, if you were a tad nicer, I'd try to help you, but the way you
> are yelling around, I don't really feel like it.
>
> Cheers
> - -- t
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAluVIWQACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYtiQCfZMLb/wMUGfg9BYYMvm3GC87e
> fgUAnjFKehh1ZMFXZezxOPwKcZDrdQWf
> =jLBn
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

Re: Emacs documentation is bad

[Ben Bacarisse]

John Stone <johnrstone2011@gmail.com> writes:

> lambda expression is a function which can appear wherever a function name
> can appear? bullshit, delete the lies from the manual

I don't think they are lies.  I think you are a (rude) Scheme programmer
who does not know that traditional Lisps like Common Lisp and Emacs Lisp
can't call closures without funcall (or apply).

This:

>> (
>>  (
>>   (lambda (f)
>>     (lambda (x)
>>       (list f x)))
>>   'g
>>   )
>>  'y
>>  )

evaluates to '(g y) in Scheme but it ill-formed in Common Lisp and Emacs
Lisp.  In Common Lisp you would write

  (funcall ((lambda (f) (lambda (x) (list f x))) 'g) 'y)

but in in Emacs Lisp you also have to have lexical binding on in the
buffer:

  (setq lexical-binding t)
  (funcall ((lambda (f) (lambda (x) (list f x))) 'g) 'y)

The fact that you need funcall to call a closure does not contradict the
statement in manual.  The same is true if we use a named function:

  (defun named (f) (lambda (x) (list f x)))
  (funcall (named 'g) 'y)

Using ((named 'g) 'y) will not work but notice how in the funcall
version the function name can indeed be replaced by the lambda
equivalent.

>>> this crashes emacs but try to figure out why from docs and you're shit
>>> out of luck and just wasted half a fucking day

I get the feeling you don't really want an explanation!  But I decided
to post this anyway because other reader might be interested and it
helps to keep the archive clear on unanswered questions.

-- 
Ben.

Re: Emacs documentation is bad

[tomas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 10:10:42PM +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

[...]

> I get the feeling you don't really want an explanation!  But I decided
> to post this anyway because other reader might be interested and it
> helps to keep the archive clear on unanswered questions.

Your patience is exemplary. Thanks, Ben :)

Cheers
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAluVjwUACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZRsQCbBlzxrDQIlzygxRgC3avzbpBb
FJIAniQ18VASK5k2BWFO+mAXCVlsw4/I
=rCqg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Emacs documentation is bad

[Barry Fishman]

On 2018-09-09 07:26:37 -07, John Stone wrote:
> From <tomas@tuxteam.de>
>> I'd try to help you, but the way you are yelling around, I don't really
>> feel like it.

[I'll assume the OP is just frustrated, and is used to Twitter, so
doesn't know how to behave in polite company.]

I have a hard time parsing your odd formatting.  I assume your expression is:

(((lambda (f) (lambda (x) (list f x))) 'g) 'y)

This does not work with 'lisp'.  It only works with Scheme
implementations, where the first position in a S-expression is
evaluated.  Scheme, although it shares the syntax with Lisp languages,
has quite different semantics, so it is not useful to consider it
another Lisp.  To me it's like referring to Java as a C++.

In most lisps (like Common Lisp and E-Lisp) that is not done, so your
lambda expression which evaluates to a lambda will not then be
re-evaluated.  In most lisps you can use a lambda expression in the function
position of an S-expression, but not something that evaluates to a
lambda.

You can can force the evaluation with:

(funcall ((lambda (f) (lambda (x) (list f x))) 'g) 'y)

Which works with Common Lisp, but not E-Lisp, since E-Lisp does not have
lexical scope by default. But you can enable it so that it would work:

(setq lexical-binding t)
(funcall ((lambda (f) (lambda (x) (list f x))) 'g) 'y)
--> (g y)

If Scheme semantics are that important to you, you could move your project to
a Scheme environment, maybe MIT Scheme and Erwin, if you want a Scheme
based Emacs.  Or help with the project implementing Guile Emacs.

> don't fix the broken the docs then, we'll use a different lisp for this
> project

As far as the Gnu Emacs documentation is concerned I'm not convinced it is wrong.
--
Barry Fishman

Re: Emacs documentation is bad

[Barry Fishman]

On 2018-09-09 22:10:42 +01, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> I don't think they are lies.  ...

Oops.  I didn't see your response when I replied.
--
Barry Fishman

Re: Emacs documentation is bad

[Noam Postavsky]

On 9 September 2018 at 17:33, Barry Fishman <barry@ecubist.org> wrote:

> If Scheme semantics are that important to you, you could move your project to
> a Scheme environment, maybe MIT Scheme and Erwin, if you want a Scheme
> based Emacs.  Or help with the project implementing Guile Emacs.

AFAIK, Guile Emacs doesn't change the semantics of Emacs Lisp, it just
reimplements the same semantics using the Guile VM bytecode
interpreter.

Re: Emacs documentation is bad

[Barry Fishman]

On 2018-09-09 17:39:54 -04, Noam Postavsky wrote:
> On 9 September 2018 at 17:33, Barry Fishman <barry@ecubist.org> wrote:
>
>> If Scheme semantics are that important to you, you could move your project to
>> a Scheme environment, maybe MIT Scheme and Erwin, if you want a Scheme
>> based Emacs.  Or help with the project implementing Guile Emacs.
>
> AFAIK, Guile Emacs doesn't change the semantics of Emacs Lisp, it just
> reimplements the same semantics using the Guile VM bytecode
> interpreter.

My understanding that a Guile implementation of Emacs is not just to use
E-Lisp, but to allow writing Emacs extensions in any language Guile
supports, in particular Scheme.

This is discussed in the Emacs Wiki page:
https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/GuileEmacs

--
Barry Fishman

Re: Emacs documentation is bad

[Bob Newell]

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 4:26 AM, John Stone <johnrstone2011@gmail.com> wrote:

> don't fix the broken the docs then, we'll use a different lisp for this
> project

Please do!

The people on this mailing list are polite, knowledgeable, and
helpful, and represent the best aspects of the free open-source
software community. They share their limited time and extensive
expertise out of a willingness to help others and to give something to
the community.

These are people who deserve our respect and appreciation, and, at a
bare minimum, common courtesy and politeness.

-- 
Bob Newell
Honolulu, Hawai`i

Via Linux/Emacs/Gnus/BBDB.

Re: Emacs documentation is bad

[Van L]

I don’t enjoy reading it.

(info "(eintr) b for interactive")  ;; what new garbage is barf-if

Re: Emacs documentation is bad

[Emanuel Berg]

Bob Newell wrote:

> The people on this mailing list are polite,
> knowledgeable, and helpful, and represent the
> best aspects of the free open-source
> software community.

Fucking right!

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: Emacs documentation is bad

[Emanuel Berg]

Bob Newell wrote:

> The people on this mailing list are polite,
> knowledgeable, and helpful, and represent the
> best aspects of the free open-source
> software community.

Well, I suppose some of us do, sometimes.
But John Stone, and everyone else who doesn't
(yet?), are welcome just the same. Behave any
way you want. Just do it with Emacs. In time,
I think it'll be impossible not to be affected
by its style and manners.


-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573