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: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:30:19 -0700 Message-ID: <582A5C06CCBC4F00890D3E976A3E8167@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> <18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com> <5F77CAC8A1ED4CD19FFE4DA49C3BBF14@us.oracle.com> <6687A7F5E2BC445C81F8BA96456112AA@us.oracle.com> <83sk3oskf0.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 1278961723 14218 80.91.229.12 (12 Jul 2010 19:08:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:08:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, schwab@linux-m68k.org, rms@gnu.org To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 12 21:08:41 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 1OYOMn-0005hM-SW for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:08:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52275 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OYOMn-0003wN-9S for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:08:37 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=55051 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OYOEj-0006Im-J1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:00:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYOEg-0000ep-1l for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:00:17 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:54461) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYOEg-0000el-0D for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:00:14 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYNnN-0002IW-Pu; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:32:01 -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: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:32:01 +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=B6591.12789594728813 (code B ref 6591); Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:32:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2010 18:31:12 +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 1OYNma-0002I6-Fm for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:31:12 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYNmY-0002I1-BX for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:31:10 -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 o6CIVAVO019370 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:31:13 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6CHbljB014245; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:31:08 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt021.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 398504811278959420; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:30:20 -0700 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.194) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:30:19 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acsh5FwAXNvx2ri2QlSOVqZACAq+igAB3cLg In-Reply-To: <83sk3oskf0.fsf@gnu.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A0B0208.4C3B5F6D.0251:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:32:01 -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:38464 Archived-At: > > But you and Eli do not agree about `...' apparently. For > > him `...' does not signify repetition > > That's not true. I simply wanted to remove the dots. Careful. "Signify repetition" of what? I was speaking of signifying repetition of _what it follows_. You made it clear that BODY is not repeated, that `...' does _not_ signify that what it follows (in this case BODY) is repeatable. You said, "Saying that there are multiple BODYs breaks the model". And that sounds good to me - there is only one body, we have agreed. Read carefully what I wrote. This is about whether postfix `...' means that _what it follows_ is repeatable, not whether BODY or `BODY...' might somehow signify that _something_ is repeatable - something _other than_ BODY itself. It's a _syntax_ description. `...' must apply to something (or to some things) that is (are) present in the same syntax description. If it does not apply to BODY, then what does it apply to? For most of the world, `X...' suggests that X can be repeated. You made it clear that `BODY...' does not mean that BODY itself can be repeated (there can be only one BODY). You have chosen to omit the _something_ that is repeatable from the syntax description and describe it only in the accompanying text, which says that BODY is one or more forms. Nothing wrong with that. But in that case `...' does not signify repetition of anything in the syntax description. It is the _accompanying text_ that says that BODY is a repetition of Lisp forms. The syntax description can only be said to indicate that if we explain that `X...' stands for a spliced-in list of Lisp forms. That (unusual) definition of `...' is missing from the doc. That's the choice: how to use `...' - what it should mean. I'm OK with your position that it should indicate a &rest parameter, IOW that it should be a postfix version of `.' (dotted pair operator). That is not the same as saying that it signifies repetition of what it follows (in the syntax description). But (a) that convention needs to be described somewhere and (b) it is not the typical convention for `...' in syntax descriptions, so we need to take care here and there to make it clear.