Michael Heerdegen [2023-01-13 14:47:52] wrote:
> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>> The patch below uses this "new new" syntax (and adjusts `cl-flet` to
>> also support this new new syntax).  It still lacks a NEWS entry (as
>> well as updating the CL manual), but before I do that, I'd like to hear
>> what other people think,
>
> I like the idea to implement this kind of feature for `cl-labels'.  It's
> a good change IMO.
>
> I don't like the syntax I think (ugly).  The rest of this answer is
> discussing this detail:
>
> I don't recall all details about the ambiguity of the empty body case,
> so forgive me if I'm missing something.
>
> A binding like (my-fun (var1 var2)) with an empty body would give you
> compiler warnings anyway.  Would this be an alternative to your "="
> style syntax:
>
> To specify a local function with an empty body one would have to use
> local variable names starting with "_":
>
>    (my-fun (_var1 _var2))
>
> If not all variables start with an underscore or not all list members
> are symbols, the binding is interpreted as specifying an expression
> evaluating to the function to bind.  This assumes that "_var" never
> specifies a named function.

I guess you're right.  So we should just use the (FUNC EXP) syntax,
exactly like we already do for `cl-flet`.
The patch below does that.


        Stefan