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: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 08:44:47 -0700 Message-ID: <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> 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 1278777698 3775 80.91.229.12 (10 Jul 2010 16:01:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:01:38 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 10 18:01:36 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 1OXcUf-0008JQ-HO for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:01:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58512 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OXcUe-0003Nb-CD for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 12:01:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51691 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OXcTF-0002vc-P6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 12:00:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXcTD-0002po-Gi for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 12:00:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:59858) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXcTD-0002ph-Dw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 12:00:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXcFd-0007DQ-Td; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:46:01 -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: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:46:01 +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=B6591.127877672327723 (code B ref 6591); Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:46:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2010 15:45:23 +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 1OXcF0-0007D6-QN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:45:22 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXcEz-0007D0-Am for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:45:21 -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 o6AFjHbD006958 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:45:18 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6AFf3wJ021398; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:45:16 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt007.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 415286211278776685; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 08:44:45 -0700 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/141.144.160.29) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 08:44:45 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> Thread-Index: AcsgPeGWyLSTz9FVSumloVyTV1KOlgABSnvA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090204.4C38958D.0064:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:46:01 -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:38346 Archived-At: > > Ah! Then the syntax should be (catch TAG . BODY) or similar. > ^^^ > Why the period? Same reason as your special `BODY...' syntax. It means _splice in_ the list BODY. Or if you like, it means that BODY is the cdr of the sexp as a list. Or if you like, it is equivalent to ,@BODY in backquote syntax. You cannot write just (catch TAG BODY). There must be some indication (`.', `...' or other) to distinguish normal substitution for a placeholder from splicing substitution for a placeholder. Substitution for TAG is treated differently from substitution for BODY. But are you just playing/kidding here? or arguing? What's the point? I'm sure that you understand the syntax (A . B) in Lisp and in our docs. I assume you are trying to make some point, but I fail to see it. Perhaps you simply want to hint that (A B...) is a notation that means the same thing as (A . B). If so, fine. However: 1. I do not think the `...' syntax is described/defined anywhere in the doc. 2. More importantly (since it is anyway easy to miss such a definition), `...' has a different meaning typically/commonly, so our interpretation (syntax convention) of `...' can easily mislead and confuse. Readers will tend to think that BODY... means zero (or one) or more repetitions of BODY. (Which is just what I originally thought it was trying to say.) So the syntax descriptors for catch, let, and progn are NOT incorrect, after all. It is the syntax convention that we've chosen that is misleading. We are entitled to any convention we like, as long as it is rigorous and we use it consistently (which I'm not questioning now). But it make sense not to use a convention that can be easily mistaken for a different convention that is more commonly used. `...' commonly means repetition of whatever it follows, and there is no repetition of BODY here (there is only one body). You decide.