* Re: 23.1; (elisp)Anonymous Functions - unclear about #'
@ 2009-09-12 2:02 Chong Yidong
2009-09-12 6:13 ` bug#4290: " Drew Adams
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Chong Yidong @ 2009-09-12 2:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Drew Adams; +Cc: 4290, emacs-devel
> This Info node is unclear. It combines pre-Emacs 22 text that
> explicitly says that lambda forms are *not* byte-compiled unless you
> use `#'' or `function', with this statement that says that they are:
> Nowadays it is possible to omit `function' entirely, like this:
> (defun double-property (symbol prop)
> (change-property symbol prop (lambda (x) (* 2 x))))
> This is because `lambda' itself implies `function'.
Thanks for spotting this.
Hmm---is `function' still useful for anything?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* bug#4290: 23.1; (elisp)Anonymous Functions - unclear about #'
2009-09-12 2:02 23.1; (elisp)Anonymous Functions - unclear about #' Chong Yidong
@ 2009-09-12 6:13 ` Drew Adams
2009-09-12 6:13 ` Drew Adams
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Drew Adams @ 2009-09-12 6:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Chong Yidong'; +Cc: 4290, emacs-devel
> > This Info node is unclear. It combines pre-Emacs 22 text that
> > explicitly says that lambda forms are *not* byte-compiled unless you
> > use `#'' or `function', with this statement that says that they are:
>
> > Nowadays it is possible to omit `function' entirely, like this:
> > (defun double-property (symbol prop)
> > (change-property symbol prop (lambda (x) (* 2 x))))
> > This is because `lambda' itself implies `function'.
>
> Thanks for spotting this.
>
> Hmm---is `function' still useful for anything?
At the very least it is needed for comptability with older Emacs versions. It
needs to be tolerated, at least.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* RE: 23.1; (elisp)Anonymous Functions - unclear about #'
2009-09-12 2:02 23.1; (elisp)Anonymous Functions - unclear about #' Chong Yidong
2009-09-12 6:13 ` bug#4290: " Drew Adams
@ 2009-09-12 6:13 ` Drew Adams
2009-09-12 19:41 ` Stefan Monnier
2009-09-12 19:41 ` bug#4290: " Stefan Monnier
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Drew Adams @ 2009-09-12 6:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Chong Yidong'; +Cc: 4290, emacs-devel
> > This Info node is unclear. It combines pre-Emacs 22 text that
> > explicitly says that lambda forms are *not* byte-compiled unless you
> > use `#'' or `function', with this statement that says that they are:
>
> > Nowadays it is possible to omit `function' entirely, like this:
> > (defun double-property (symbol prop)
> > (change-property symbol prop (lambda (x) (* 2 x))))
> > This is because `lambda' itself implies `function'.
>
> Thanks for spotting this.
>
> Hmm---is `function' still useful for anything?
At the very least it is needed for comptability with older Emacs versions. It
needs to be tolerated, at least.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* bug#4290: 23.1; (elisp)Anonymous Functions - unclear about #'
2009-09-12 2:02 23.1; (elisp)Anonymous Functions - unclear about #' Chong Yidong
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-09-12 19:41 ` Stefan Monnier
@ 2009-09-12 19:41 ` Stefan Monnier
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Monnier @ 2009-09-12 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chong Yidong; +Cc: 4290, emacs-devel
> Thanks for spotting this.
> Hmm---is `function' still useful for anything?
Well, it's just as useful as ever. I.e. it's useless when you consider
that its implementation is the same as `quote', but it's otherwise
indispensable (e.g. look at the implementation of the `lambda' macro in
subr.el).
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.1; (elisp)Anonymous Functions - unclear about #'
2009-09-12 2:02 23.1; (elisp)Anonymous Functions - unclear about #' Chong Yidong
2009-09-12 6:13 ` bug#4290: " Drew Adams
2009-09-12 6:13 ` Drew Adams
@ 2009-09-12 19:41 ` Stefan Monnier
2009-09-12 19:41 ` bug#4290: " Stefan Monnier
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Monnier @ 2009-09-12 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chong Yidong; +Cc: 4290, Drew Adams, emacs-devel
> Thanks for spotting this.
> Hmm---is `function' still useful for anything?
Well, it's just as useful as ever. I.e. it's useless when you consider
that its implementation is the same as `quote', but it's otherwise
indispensable (e.g. look at the implementation of the `lambda' macro in
subr.el).
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-09-12 19:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-09-12 2:02 23.1; (elisp)Anonymous Functions - unclear about #' Chong Yidong
2009-09-12 6:13 ` bug#4290: " Drew Adams
2009-09-12 6:13 ` Drew Adams
2009-09-12 19:41 ` Stefan Monnier
2009-09-12 19:41 ` bug#4290: " Stefan Monnier
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.