From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Daniel Mendler <mail@daniel-mendler.de>,
"47992@debbugs.gnu.org" <47992@debbugs.gnu.org>,
"jakanakaevangeli@chiru.no" <jakanakaevangeli@chiru.no>
Subject: bug#47992: [External] : bug#47992: 27; 28; Phase out use of `equal` in `add-hook`, `remove-hook`
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 01:23:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <SA2PR10MB447480C0AE647319D17399A7F3439@SA2PR10MB4474.namprd10.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <jwva6pnz5gu.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org>
> > So instead of just advising users not to use lambda forms
> > (which makes sense), you'd make it no longer work at all
> > for interpreted lambda forms (except rare cases where
> > they might actually be `eq' - e.g., same list structure)?
>
> It would still work for lambda forms, just differently (arguably,
> in a way that's more often right than the current way).
Please elaborate. Comparing lambda forms using `eq'?
Not clear to me how that works in the general case.
(eq (lambda () foo) (lambda () foo)) ?
I don't see that it works at all, let alone works more
often than the current way:
(equal (lambda () foo) (lambda () foo))
> > Perhaps `equal' can be fixed to do something better with closures?
>
> There's no magic: `equal` has to check the structural equality, so it
> has to recurse through the whole structure, including all the
> closed-over variables to which it refers.
That's what I was hinting. I don't see the magic either.
> > E.g., if the `eq' test in `equal' fails for a
> > closure arg then return nil? (I'm not proposing that.)
>
> That's what using `eq` would do, so you seem to agree with
> Daniel's proposal here.
Not at all. I was saying that that's what I understand
him to be proposing, in the context of `add-hook'.
If that made sense for that case (which it doesn't, to
me) then I should think it would make sense in general
(which I don't think it does - no such magic).
How does comparing closures with `eq' makes sense for
`add-hook' but not in general? That was the question.
I don't see that it makes sense for either.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-25 1:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-24 12:11 bug#47992: 27; 28; Phase out use of `equal` in `add-hook`, `remove-hook` Daniel Mendler
2021-04-24 20:12 ` bug#47992: [External] : " Drew Adams
2021-04-24 20:23 ` Daniel Mendler
2021-04-24 21:20 ` Drew Adams
2021-04-24 21:34 ` Daniel Mendler
2021-04-24 22:30 ` Stefan Monnier
2021-04-24 22:38 ` Daniel Mendler
2021-04-24 23:04 ` Stefan Monnier
2021-04-24 23:38 ` Daniel Mendler
2021-04-25 1:16 ` Drew Adams
2021-04-25 3:08 ` Stefan Monnier
2021-04-25 4:57 ` Drew Adams
2021-04-25 13:52 ` Stefan Monnier
2021-04-25 1:16 ` Drew Adams
2021-04-25 1:23 ` Drew Adams [this message]
2021-04-25 3:10 ` Stefan Monnier
2021-04-25 4:57 ` Drew Adams
2021-04-25 10:33 ` Daniel Mendler
2021-04-25 13:56 ` Stefan Monnier
2021-05-02 9:09 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-05-02 10:37 ` Daniel Mendler
2021-05-03 8:50 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-07-06 14:44 ` Olivier Certner
[not found] ` <877di6udfy.fsf@web.de>
2021-07-04 1:09 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-07-04 2:35 ` Michael Heerdegen
2021-07-04 2:56 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-07-04 4:28 ` Michael Heerdegen
2021-07-04 13:36 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-07-04 17:08 ` bug#47992: [External] : " Drew Adams
2021-07-04 22:45 ` Michael Heerdegen
2021-07-05 12:39 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-07-06 1:48 ` Richard Stallman
2021-07-06 2:37 ` bug#47992: [External] : " Drew Adams
2021-07-06 3:21 ` Michael Heerdegen
2021-07-07 23:57 ` Richard Stallman
2021-07-06 9:46 ` Arthur Miller
2021-07-07 23:57 ` Richard Stallman
2021-07-08 2:11 ` Arthur Miller
2021-07-04 23:15 ` Michael Heerdegen
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=SA2PR10MB447480C0AE647319D17399A7F3439@SA2PR10MB4474.namprd10.prod.outlook.com \
--to=drew.adams@oracle.com \
--cc=47992@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=jakanakaevangeli@chiru.no \
--cc=mail@daniel-mendler.de \
--cc=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca \
/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.