From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: MON KEY Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6497: 6497 Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:35:28 -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 1278187213 13727 80.91.229.12 (3 Jul 2010 20:00:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2010 20:00:13 +0000 (UTC) To: 6497@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 03 22:00:11 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 1OV8sk-0003IJ-3X for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 22:00:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50977 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OV8sj-0002lB-EQ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 16:00:09 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=55349 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OV8sH-0002aJ-0p for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:59:41 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OV8sF-0003m3-Hm for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:59:40 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:33826) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OV8sF-0003lz-FJ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:59:39 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OV8VN-0001XP-RR; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:36:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: MON KEY Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 19:36:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6497 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 6497-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6497.12781857355847 (code B ref 6497); Sat, 03 Jul 2010 19:36:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6497) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Jul 2010 19:35:35 +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 1OV8Uw-0001WD-Bx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:35:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com ([209.85.161.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OV8Uv-0001W8-3j for 6497@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:35:33 -0400 Original-Received: by gxk3 with SMTP id 3so303523gxk.3 for <6497@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.90.67.8 with SMTP id p8mr1140647aga.53.1278185728658; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.151.46.4 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Jul 2010 12:35:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Google-Sender-Auth: n9heb8X3O4y4iWqh05wzriTriak X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:36:01 -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:38216 Archived-At: On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Geoff Gole wrote: >> Prob. what you meant to was: >> (progn >> (fset 'foo 3) >> (symbol-function 'foo)) > > Indeed, although it's a trivial mistake. The example works just as > well when the value of foo is a symbol, which it must have been at the > time I tried it. > The triviality of the mistake is apropos my rationale for requesting that the docstrings be further fleshed out, it is all to easy to find oneself in these sorts of situations w/re `symbol-function' & `indirect-function' and no way to reasonably partition an expected return value(s) from an unexpected one... That you fell pey to it while trying to illustrate a counter argument to my proposal is (in some small way) an indicative of the problem. > Unintern does funny things. Those funny things are not relevant to > this bug report. See above. > >> The distinction between value cell and >> function cell confirms a reliance on the details of function >> representation. > > What a bizarre claim. The number of slots in a symbol has nothing to > do with the representation of functions. Why would it? > If the symbol did not have cells it would. Which the "bizarre" behaviour of the unintern/makunbound examples illustrate. -- /s_P\