From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:48:12 +0300 Message-ID: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> References: Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1278699045 5016 80.91.229.12 (9 Jul 2010 18:10:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 18:10:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 09 20:10:42 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 1OXI26-0001UK-9x for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:10:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58328 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OXHrv-0000HC-Lg for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:00:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=39976 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OXHrl-0000FX-Pk for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:00:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXHrk-0004bu-IL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:00:01 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:58391) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXHrk-0004bi-H0 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:00:00 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXHi6-0005x3-Vs; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 13:50:03 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:50:02 +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=B6591.127869776022861 (code B ref 6591); Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:50:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Jul 2010 17:49:20 +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 1OXHhQ-0005wg-5H for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 13:49:20 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXHhN-0005wZ-Ta for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 13:49:19 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L5A00F00XDXYV00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:49:01 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.120.144]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L5A00CMBXHME9A0@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:48:59 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 13:50:02 -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:38320 Archived-At: > From: "Drew Adams" > Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 08:52:05 -0700 > Cc: > > to BODY as if there were only one BODY, and it refers to "the forms of > the BODY", by which it probably means to refer to the BODYs, that is, > the BODY items in the list (BODY...). > > "BODY" is anyway the wrong term to use here, as it suggests (even if it > does not imply) that only one such sexp is allowed. But more > importantly, it is incorrect to refer to "the forms of the BODY" when > what is really meant is the list of BODYs. No, ``forms of BODY'' is correct. No one said that BODY can contain only one sexp. > When the doc says "the value of the last body form is returned" it > really means that the value of the last BODY sexp is returned - not the > last form in BODY. What's the difference? IMO, it doesn't make sense to talk about "BODYs", since the whole doc string doesn't make sense then. And please don't argue: this is my opinion, and we don't have to agree.