bug#3178: 23.0.92; doc string for lexical-let*

bug#3178: 23.0.92; doc string for lexical-let*

[Drew Adams]

Doc string:
 
 Like `let*', but lexically scoped.
 The main visible difference is that lambdas inside BODY will create
 lexical closures as in Common Lisp.
 
It doesn't say this, but that can give the impression that it is only
in the BODY that this happens.  It also happens in successive
bindings.  That is, in (lexical-let* ((a X)(b Y)) BODY) the lexical
binding of `a' is in effect not only in BODY but also in Y.
 
I suspect that the second sentence of the doc string was simply
copy+pasted from the doc string for `lexical-let'.  In `lexical-let',
only the BODY is pertinent, but in `lexical-let*', there is also the
question of what happens in the right hand side of each binding.
 
The doc string (and the Emacs CL manual) should also say explicitly
that the behavior is the same as Common Lisp's `let*' (except that CL
treats CL's special variables specially).
 

In GNU Emacs 23.0.92.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2009-03-30 on SOFT-MJASON
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (3.4)'
 

bug#3178: marked as done (23.0.92; doc string for lexical-let*)

[Emacs bug Tracking System]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 858 bytes --]


Your message dated Sun, 10 May 2009 18:01:12 -0400
with message-id <87r5ywehxz.fsf@cyd.mit.edu>
and subject line Re: 23.0.92; doc string for lexical-let*
has caused the Emacs bug report #3178,
regarding 23.0.92; doc string for lexical-let*
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com
immediately.)


-- 
3178: http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3178
Emacs Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com with problems

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3761 bytes --]

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>
To: <emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org>
Subject: 23.0.92; doc string for lexical-let*
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 11:10:53 -0700
Message-ID: <006b01c9ca88$2b5e8eb0$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com>

Doc string:
 
 Like `let*', but lexically scoped.
 The main visible difference is that lambdas inside BODY will create
 lexical closures as in Common Lisp.
 
It doesn't say this, but that can give the impression that it is only
in the BODY that this happens.  It also happens in successive
bindings.  That is, in (lexical-let* ((a X)(b Y)) BODY) the lexical
binding of `a' is in effect not only in BODY but also in Y.
 
I suspect that the second sentence of the doc string was simply
copy+pasted from the doc string for `lexical-let'.  In `lexical-let',
only the BODY is pertinent, but in `lexical-let*', there is also the
question of what happens in the right hand side of each binding.
 
The doc string (and the Emacs CL manual) should also say explicitly
that the behavior is the same as Common Lisp's `let*' (except that CL
treats CL's special variables specially).
 

In GNU Emacs 23.0.92.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2009-03-30 on SOFT-MJASON
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (3.4)'
 




[-- Attachment #3: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1336 bytes --]

From: Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com>
To: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>
Cc: 3178-done@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com
Subject: Re: 23.0.92; doc string for lexical-let*
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 18:01:12 -0400
Message-ID: <87r5ywehxz.fsf@cyd.mit.edu>

> It doesn't say this, but that can give the impression that it is only
> in the BODY that this happens.  It also happens in successive
> bindings.  That is, in (lexical-let* ((a X)(b Y)) BODY) the lexical
> binding of `a' is in effect not only in BODY but also in Y.
 
Done, thanks.