From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:10:38 -0700 Message-ID: <18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com> References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org><5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com><83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org><83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org><3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com><83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org><38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com><83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com><526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1278876823 24166 80.91.229.12 (11 Jul 2010 19:33:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:33:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Richard Stallman' To: "'Andreas Schwab'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 11 21:33:37 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY2HL-0002Wb-8h for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:33:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50838 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OY2HI-0003Ux-9o for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:33:28 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46353 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OY2E4-0001jk-Sj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:30:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY2E3-00075q-Oo for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:30:08 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:53613) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY2E3-00075m-NV for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:30:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY1wY-0006Ez-MK; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:12:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:12:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6591 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 6591-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6591.127887549523979 (code B ref 6591); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:12:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 19:11:35 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY1w7-0006Ei-Da for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:11:35 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY1w5-0006Ea-TR for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:11:34 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6BJBWIS011755 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:11:33 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt355.oracle.com (acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6BIf5LM012073; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:11:31 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt014.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 416501611278875438; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:10:38 -0700 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.175.255.126) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:10:37 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-reply-to: Thread-Index: AcshJPE8WIzxTYyNSLa8HC/ST0EStgAANnJQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090203.4C3A1764.00DA:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:12:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:38413 Archived-At: > > No better alternative? Did you read the thread? What > > about doing what the rest of the world does: (catch TAG FORM...)? > > Just because you spell the body form does not make it any different > form. The ellipses is already unambigous. Please read the thread. Ellipsis commonly means that whatever it follows can be repeated. The body is not repeated. [Ditto for `*' (same as `...'). Common Lisp writes this as (catch TAG {FORM}*), which is clear.] This convention for `...', no matter how common, should also be stated in the docs, of course. I gave the Oracle docs as an example, and this convention is clearly spelled out there. > > What does "BODY forms" refer to: (1) a set of BODYs, each > > of which is a Lisp form, or (2) the set of Lisp forms that > > comprise a BODY. The term "BODY forms" is ambiguous. It > > can mean the forms that make up BODY or a list of forms each > > of which is a BODY. > > This is _not_ a list, What is not a list - what is "this"? > it is a repeated argument, Bzzzzt! No, sorry, but thanks for playing. What argument is repeated? BODY? Eli says no. What is repeated (repeatable) is the FORM that actually is an argument (and which does not appear in the syntax description). `BODY...' is not an argument (according to Eli). BODY is not an argument (according to Eli). BODY cannot be repeated (according to Eli). [Where "according to Eli" means my understanding of what he wrote.] > not matter how you name the parameter. What parameter? BODY is not an (ordinary) parameter. `BODY...' is not a parameter. BODY would be a &rest parameter, if we expressed it that way (which I suggested as one possibility). Other than that, it is _not_ an ordinary parameter. [MacLisp writes (*catch TAGSPEC . BODY), which is clear, even if not conventional outside the Lisp world.] But in (catch TAG BODY...) BODY is not a placeholder, and `...' does not mean repetition of BODY. Instead, `BODY...' is a single token standing for a list of forms that is spliced in to produce an implicit `progn'. So "it is a repeated argument, no matter how you name the parameter" is wrong on at least two counts. > If it were a list it would be a single parameter. See above.