From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John ff Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Is this a bug in while-let or do I missunderstand it? Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 21:52:04 +0000 Message-ID: References: <86ldxrliau.fsf@gnu.org> <865xot2y1d.fsf@fastmail.fm> <86ldxoiqzr.fsf@gnu.org> <86ttccvwwj.fsf@fastmail.fm> <87bjyjfowt.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <874j4bfoen.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="7013"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Android Cc: Joost Kremers ,Eli Zaretskii , arthur.miller@live.com,ams@gnu.org, yuri.v.khan@gmail.com,emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Sean Whitton Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 14 22:54:08 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1tBhmx-0001fz-SX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2024 22:54:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tBhmn-0001Vd-Ps; Thu, 14 Nov 2024 16:53:58 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tBhmm-0001Uw-Jf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2024 16:53:56 -0500 Original-Received: from codemist.co.uk ([217.155.197.248]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tBhml-0006kj-52; Thu, 14 Nov 2024 16:53:56 -0500 Original-Received: from [172.16.4.31] by codemist.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1tBhmj-000000005m8-1fit; Thu, 14 Nov 2024 21:53:53 +0000 In-Reply-To: X-Referenced-Uid: 250760 Thread-Topic: Re: Is this a bug in while-let or do I missunderstand it? X-Is-Generated-Message-Id: true X-ACL-Warn: No reverse lookup Received-SPF: pass client-ip=217.155.197.248; envelope-from=jpff@codemist.co.uk; helo=codemist.co.uk X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:325457 Archived-At: -------- Original Message -------- From: John ff Sent: Thu Nov 14 21:51:11 GMT 2024 To: Sean Whitton Cc: Joost Kremers , Eli Zaretskii , arthur=2Emiller@live=2Ecom, ams@gnu=2Eorg, yuri=2Ev=2Ekhan@gm= ail=2Ecom, emacs-devel@gnu=2Eorg Subject: Re: Is this a bug in while-let or= do I missunderstand it? -------- Original Message -------- From: Sean = Whitton Sent: Wed Nov 13 09:56:00 GMT 2024 To:= Joost Kremers Cc: Eli Zaretskii , arthur=2Emiller@live=2Ecom, ams@gnu=2Eorg, yuri=2Ev=2Ekhan@gmail=2Ecom= , emacs-devel@gnu=2Eorg Subject: Re: Is this a bug in while-let or do I mis= sunderstand it? Hello, On Wed 13 Nov 2024 at 05:45pm +08, Sean Whitton wrote: > Please put the "like let*" back in (the first change in your patch)=2E > There is one person who dislikes it but I think the average reader of > the Elisp reference will benefit=2E Oops -- you just moved it=2E I have one further comment on your patch: > Some Lisp programmers follow the convention that @code{and} and > -@code{and-let*} are for forms evaluated for return value, and > +@code{and-let*} are for forms evaluated for their return value, and > @code{when} and @code{when-let*} are for forms evaluated for side-effec= t > with returned values ignored=2E This change renders the sentence grammatically incorrect=2E It needs to be either "for return value" and "for side-effect" or "for their return values" and "for the side-effects of their evaluation"= =2E I think it's better to use the shorter one (i=2Ee=2E, make no changes here= )=2E --=20 Sean Whitton