From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Minor simplification in byte-opt.el Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:53:20 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1E56C0EA-33C5-4E36-BD95-064A12253B95@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30869"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel To: Mattias =?windows-1252?Q?Engdeg=E5rd?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 28 16:54:08 2020 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 1k0QzX-0007uY-VF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 16:54:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57460 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0QzW-00081P-VT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:54:06 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36868) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0Qyv-0007AG-UY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:53:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:20035) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0Qyt-0004cS-T8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:53:29 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 75D434415E8; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:53:26 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E7E824415E4; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:53:20 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1595948000; bh=t5hQgyxynv0D3A3S9ccV8adpEW4lJUg1ftGCZwMmh0A=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=M8lrnm/J1e/KT3atLcAEQmWJg0frESmBiilgWyzgieDQy1puTIq/hC3o5WojEl9br pBmaYbVZw+a8dP2yslCCk9W4G+M1Y2empk6jeWrc00GZQUh50+zJ5IynXFFpGIYiQj 9KewHTZvc4uqN/HwW6n1WpSKsOuWCnnK8AJNHUcU4tCFeZ24zL0FTdeyLY0vIRXB8o lZoPu0jN2bV2rGpBqm0UCuHUOR+2q9yg+9P/8jmAFktlj2U+0bL0NlGY/tdJD2Gh4C HVTL4r3yXHg8jwCf8oLvGl0YdFtEeV8Z9kSYWkElJzuA9WKgblfbwnFoYwRdocFrtR yLKrZpoGyz0BA== Original-Received: from milanesa (unknown [104.247.229.155]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C0A0B1202A8; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:53:20 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <1E56C0EA-33C5-4E36-BD95-064A12253B95@acm.org> ("Mattias =?windows-1252?Q?Engdeg=E5rd=22's?= message of "Tue, 28 Jul 2020 16:43:05 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/07/28 10:48:37 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:253302 Archived-At: >> [ tho IMO we shouldn't support `closure` there. ] > Probably. I was a bit unsure about whether that case could ever occur and > didn't want to change too many things at once. We currently do allow it (in the interpreter and the byte-compiler), but I think this is a mistake and we should emit a warning (if not an error) when the byte-compiler encounters such a construct. Stefan