From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
To: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de>
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 01:57:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <SJ0PR10MB5488C8CCB7EA6518902CD759F3199@SJ0PR10MB5488.namprd10.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87r16skwoh.fsf@web.de>
> Could as well be that it's just only different because nobody cared
> enough about pp all the time. I would not be shocked if the different
> behavior is only an accident.
Could be. Dunno.
Still calls out for a better argument than a vague
opinion that such a change adding incompatibility
would be "more convenient". That's all.
The commands have different uses. Their behavior
has long been different in this regard. What's a
great argument for making this change? That's the
question.
As I said:
It's a reasonable proposal to examine. And it
might be the right thing to do.
PP eval is not non-PP eval, and "more convenient"
isn't a strong argument when the increment of
"more" isn't large.
When introducing backward-incompatible behavior
maybe other, stronger arguments would help.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-24 1:57 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 [this message]
2022-03-24 2:22 ` Michael Heerdegen
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=SJ0PR10MB5488C8CCB7EA6518902CD759F3199@SJ0PR10MB5488.namprd10.prod.outlook.com \
--to=drew.adams@oracle.com \
--cc=54537@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=larsi@gnus.org \
--cc=michael_heerdegen@web.de \
--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.