From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#52063: 28.0.60; Confusing presentation of lambda Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:54:25 +0100 Message-ID: <87r1az12zy.fsf@gnus.org> References: <83czmqaegb.fsf@gnu.org> <83v90h8zjw.fsf@gnu.org> <87r1b5u1cl.fsf@gnus.org> <83pmqp8vps.fsf@gnu.org> <87v90ge5rc.fsf@gnus.org> <87a6hr9k79.fsf@gnus.org> <87a6hruk4u.fsf@gnus.org> <875ysfujya.fsf@gnus.org> <87ee73t10k.fsf@gnus.org> <87tufxr8cc.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="10190"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Philipp Stephani , Filipp Gunbin , 52063@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 29 15:05:11 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mrhHK-0002PI-2m for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:05:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55476 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mrhHI-0001EJ-Ev for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:05:08 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50812) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mrh7W-00015G-TB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:55:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:54132) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mrh7W-0003Yp-IH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:55:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mrh7W-0003Cz-0e for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:55:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:55:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 52063 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 52063-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B52063.163819407912297 (code B ref 52063); Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:55:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 52063) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Nov 2021 13:54:39 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37445 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mrh79-0003CH-G7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:54:39 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:57652) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mrh78-0003C5-2S for 52063@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:54:38 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=8vBzjltxUsPt8NSMCvtyMLCP9bTANdfCVTbQ985lHyU=; b=m4VkqpVD3NygNVvhr+A9Ib0Apv SuvwQ9BULPvR0GgVqv/Ou9bKddapCDBHSODZYPstWi4vSJx3i/Pe4jMhQ6NvYg/7LBgQdHjH+acnQ 0PKsEAxw6zKREH73e5XtRJwacHlWXLqeQ2pTQCFyBhiaeaSlwbl7Lu+H4Z6HF2iiWXNs=; Original-Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mrh6w-0004ot-Ia; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:54:29 +0100 Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwAgMAAAAqbBEUAAAABGdBTUEAALGPC/xhBQAAACBj SFJNAAB6JgAAgIQAAPoAAACA6AAAdTAAAOpgAAA6mAAAF3CculE8AAAADFBMVEUiMDlbgqtin93/ //8bMBNBAAAAAWJLR0QDEQxM8gAAAAd0SU1FB+ULHQ0nOKXhB2oAAAGMSURBVCjPTdDBiqNAEAbg 6kHnkFMCGhgfYZ7CGWJgbwopwT7NIQbsp9h5g8yCwnjKgDb2/5RbZTawjZePsqv/KqIa4UTrORB9 g/mOlKgCFyWRWT9uuVLkWmnbs/4jiIk8TytMWRENzVzwblu0nBCN4/Td7qJjV8sLGBbmNK67PwJf LxUnccG5dINdkioSaDfUS8p53J5W+CUtjGnXBK6/vsjVFcaNP5xs6SVXbEbflAnFpcbYwNtrQUbx 5IB6otzohOYV6M70QRrX1EDoqLxX0jtiznVyi87lZXbWDuRRut+yo0gB3Nyn3Ow1g/fL621wmHT2 AdhMvUMgis0ROM6dvC27NM8I77AjtGQKTDFGD4C25g2BEaAgwePIOzv3H0wGWInuBFezB8YanZUI N60MHFjxkQp8H5qjLOgWbwRzsO+SoM8FYe7s7kTmS+Axd9lBUKz4abLP6IG5ya4xPfFBu/nGTrLe obAI7tLYRXP+2gjqw37WaCzLwAONpq6jfb/iIqj+obvImBw9f9Ff0Oq5iCmtxEQAAAAldEVYdGRh dGU6Y3JlYXRlADIwMjEtMTEtMjlUMTM6Mzk6NTYrMDA6MDDOdNwYAAAAJXRFWHRkYXRlOm1vZGlm eQAyMDIxLTExLTI5VDEzOjM5OjU2KzAwOjAwvylkpAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== X-Now-Playing: Consolidated's _We're Already There_: "The Chickens are Coming Home" In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Sat, 27 Nov 2021 10:28:36 -0500") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:220996 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: > I'm OK with making the printed representation similar to the > source code. But when that is in turn used to motivate changes to the > source code, I think it's gone too far. > It's hard enough to design good source syntax without such constraints. I'm not sure I follow you -- I don't think this would mean changing any source code? But, yes, it would mean that people might be tempted to write actual code like (lambda () (declare (lexical-binding (foo . 1))) ...) but people might be tempted to do the same with `closure' forms, and that doesn't seem to be happening. My point is that if we're extending the `lambda' syntax, we might as well do it in a way that allows further easy expansions in the future. > Also, I think it's good if the source syntax is a bit different from the > function value syntax: we want the two to be *similar* so the function > value feels familiar and can intuitively be understood, but we also want > to make it clear that we're looking at something > fundamentally different. > > That's why I'd favor a representation of the form #[...] or #<...> or ... Hm, right... I think I'm in favour of demystifying, not further mystifying things for the users. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no