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 07:56:33 -0700 Message-ID: <5F77CAC8A1ED4CD19FFE4DA49C3BBF14@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> 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 1278946821 23012 80.91.229.12 (12 Jul 2010 15:00:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:00:21 +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 Mon Jul 12 17:00:19 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 1OYKUU-0000eL-Le for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:00:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47965 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OYKUT-0000br-U5 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:00:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37074 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OYKUO-0000ak-0K for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:00:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYKUM-00063Y-S1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:00:11 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:37169) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYKUM-00063Q-Px for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:00:10 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYKSI-0000fI-0l; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:58:02 -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: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:58:01 +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=B6591.12789466412543 (code B ref 6591); Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:58:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2010 14:57:21 +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 1OYKRc-0000ey-KV for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:57:20 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYKRa-0000es-1c for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:57:18 -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 o6CEvIEX027132 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:57:19 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 o6C682Wc004726; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:57:16 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt020.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 418614581278946590; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 07:56:30 -0700 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/141.144.88.36) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 07:56:29 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acshnlx2WR4pPkYPQc+oienjGmj5mwAMc6dw In-Reply-To: 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=0001.0A090202.4C3B2D4D.025D: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 10:58:02 -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:38446 Archived-At: > > Is BODY repeated? > > Yes. Then there are multiple BODYs, which Eli denies. And in that case, the accompanying text is incorrect and misleading, since it speaks as if there is only one body (which Eli says is in fact the case). You cannot have it both ways. If BODY represents a sexp that can be repeated, then there is not only one body that contains all of the sexps following TAG. If BODY represents all of the sexps that follow tag, spliced in, then BODY is not repeated. Read the thread - this has all been gone over. There are essentially two alternative solutions: 1. Use `...' to mean repetition of what it follows, as in the rest of the world. And change BODY to FORM, in order not to mislead. Then (catch TAG FORM...) says exactly what it means: zero or more FORMs follow TAG. 2. Introduce an Emacs-only interpretation of `...' which means that what it follows is a list to be spliced in. In this case, postfix `...' is equivalent to infix `.' (dot notation) and to a &rest parameter spec. #2 is what Eli says that `...' means in Emacs syntax descriptions. That is unusual, but a legitimate choice. Then (catch TAG BODY...) says that BODY is a list of somethings (the accompanying text would say forms) that are spliced in. So in (catch 'foo (a) (b) 42) the body is ((a) (b) 42). The body is an implicit `progn'. BODY is a &rest parameter for `catch'. If #2 is chosen, then the doc must explain the `...' notation somewhere. (It should explain that notation in any case, but especially in the case where it has an unconventional and unusual interpretation.) #1 is my preference, because it is easier on readers and easier in terms of doc maintenance. It is consistent with what one finds outside Emacs. What is a BUG is to use #2 with no explanation of the unusual syntax convention.