From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: MON KEY Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: moving more cl seq/mapping support into core Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 20:29:54 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1286585140 4414 80.91.229.12 (9 Oct 2010 00:45:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 00:45:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 09 02:45:39 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1P4NZC-0002Ed-67 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 02:45:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60277 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P4NZB-0003cw-Bv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 20:45:37 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35002 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P4NYz-0003Z5-Rv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 20:45:26 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P4NK1-0003Da-AA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 20:29:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-yx0-f169.google.com ([209.85.213.169]:55535) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P4NK1-0003DO-80; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 20:29:57 -0400 Original-Received: by yxm8 with SMTP id 8so787610yxm.0 for ; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:29:55 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.100.105.10 with SMTP id d10mr1091081anc.4.1286584195192; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:29:55 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.100.8.18 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:29:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Google-Sender-Auth: cWx7y3PnIw-T01mDpCDBSLgKDbo X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:131514 Archived-At: On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: > > I guess you had already loaded cl. > Yes, apparently so. Indeed, the warning does not appear with an "emacs -Q" > The purpose of this warning is to encourage people not to write their code > to call cl at run time. > > I think it was intended to operate in files that load cl at compile > time and don't require cl at run time. OK. But, the CL wasn't called at runtime. I've not seen a similar such warning when byte-compiling files that redefine other functions formally globally defined from some other place. AFAIK this only occurs with the CL's. > > The occurrence of the message in this case seems like a bug. > I don't have the impression that this is a bug per se. Its fairly clear looking at the sources of emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el that this is an intended (albeit unfortunate) outcome of `byte-compile-cl-warn', `byte-compile-cl-file-p', `byte-compile-eval'. What I find troubling is that: - the warning occurs opaquely and separate from the locus of its intended target (it affects the user regardless of whether she is the package author); - the distinction w/re the "global names" is made specific to CL at the byte-compiler level. With regards the latter my impression is that the distinction is made manifest at such a low-level _because_ it is primarily a philosophical/political design-decision rather than as a requirement of the LispMachine. What is irksome is that the distinction, being at once low-level and by proxy cumulatively entrenched, both allows and promotes a conflation of the design-decision aspects of the runtime ban with the functional requirements of the LispMachine in such a way as to disincentivise efforts to attempt decoupling the historically abstract vs. any contemporary practical concerns and intentions around a CL feature(s). Whether this outcome has arisen from a conscious intent/desire to prevent/deter incorporation of Common-Lisp like features into Emacs Lisp or is the only an inadverdent effect the result is the same. -- /s_P\