From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>,
"54537@debbugs.gnu.org" <54537@debbugs.gnu.org>,
Visuwesh <visuweshm@gmail.com>
Subject: bug#54537: Re: bug#54537: 29.0.50; Last sexp notion is different for eval-last-sexp and pp-eval-last-sexp
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 03:22:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <875yo4ks37.fsf@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR10MB5488C8CCB7EA6518902CD759F3199@SJ0PR10MB5488.namprd10.prod.outlook.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Thu, 24 Mar 2022 01:57:56 +0000")
Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
> Still calls out for a better argument than a vague
> opinion that such a change adding incompatibility
> would be "more convenient". That's all.
Ok - let's become concrete now.
About what kinds of use cases are we a talking about? Use cases like
this:
#+begin_src emacs-lisp
`(,(+ 2 3)
,(+ 4 5))
#+end_src
The non-pp behavior is useful (you are able to eval the inserted
subexpressions). The pp behavior is not useful (error).
This behaves identically in both versions:
#+begin_src emacs-lisp
',(+ 4 5)
#+end_src
(you get the expected `,(+ 4 5)`.)
So we only talk about plain naked `unquote` expressions.
Do you see any concrete advantages of the pp-version behavior? Or some
concrete hints that the pp version must be like this for more
consistency in the pp package?
OTOH, a concrete problem I see is that people avoid pp due to such things.
As far as I recall the history of the pp package, I don't expect much
logic behind the behavior. Maybe it really just...sucks?
Michael.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-24 2:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-23 13:51 bug#54537: 29.0.50; Last sexp notion is different for eval-last-sexp and pp-eval-last-sexp Visuwesh
2022-03-23 14:06 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2022-03-23 14:41 ` Drew Adams
2022-03-23 16:32 ` Visuwesh
2022-03-23 21:06 ` bug#54537: " Drew Adams
2022-03-24 0:42 ` Michael Heerdegen
2022-03-24 1:57 ` Drew Adams
2022-03-24 2:22 ` Michael Heerdegen [this message]
2022-03-24 3:44 ` Drew Adams
2022-03-24 2:23 ` Visuwesh
2022-03-25 15:44 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2022-03-25 15:55 ` Visuwesh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=875yo4ks37.fsf@web.de \
--to=michael_heerdegen@web.de \
--cc=54537@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=drew.adams@oracle.com \
--cc=larsi@gnus.org \
--cc=visuweshm@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.