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: [nongnu] elpa/geiser bb9d5cb200: geiser-impl--normalize-method: quick fix for previous change Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:16:54 -0500 Message-ID: References: <164339989485.1614.11034229578358286224@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20220128195815.4DB24C423B9@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <87bkzva8qh.fsf@gnus.jao.io> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="24476"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Jose A Ortega Ruiz Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 28 22:18:55 2022 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 1nDYdz-00068u-3X for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 22:18:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45712 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nDYdx-0003LY-U8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:18:53 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50004) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nDYcK-0001vT-2Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:17:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:63402) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nDYcC-0008Nu-Me; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:17:11 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3787A100189; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:16:59 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7BC02100025; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:16:57 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1643404617; bh=FRHdoOzAwfLReqjbXYggoM+540En6W2qOVgmg/nWRVg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=O9y5u/BPLdYQFMMcH3VEBWFi1Uz2CJTcs71gIlLl2HIEBneHcIvKtAn3KUowhKIef 5vpMlWN9n7Q61xczKon2VIH7G46S27Vrdgi8GEBDnu1GHVLzPxvVPvJ0NtLqVq5Fs7 zHbNOl2t/O6iShdEPsowDWoO/tf7kS+wEpoSeHWYoP8R4w1h/pHCwa7xvbhiJP81Zr 57VW/rouqMHP9kOmjnxPdZc5sTqoBQuNnUpS6imwZ96senazRdJM4OKwZrfif56AON MNWu/jqivIUCO3EGas+LM0f2g/xSXVvr+MQG/DNYAOmCGd9ZsoXJo4z8/ZaM5xFaOY a/JJcH+s6XnvA== Original-Received: from ceviche (76-10-138-212.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.138.212]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 50725120524; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:16:57 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87bkzva8qh.fsf@gnus.jao.io> (Jose A. Ortega Ruiz's message of "Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:47:02 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -23 X-Spam_score: -2.4 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.4 / 5.0 requ) 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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=unavailable 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:285531 Archived-At: > yes, that works, but i find it ugly to use eval explictly for the sake > of not using "a list-that-looks-like-a-function": To me, it's being more honest: we have a variable that holds an ELisp expression, so we need `eval` somwehere. > what are the downsides of the latter? i understand that i'd be just > hiding an implicit eval, but is that all, or am i missing > other drawbacks? There's no serious drawback, no. Here are some minor drawbacks: - In Common-Lisp and Scheme '(lambda () 5) does not evaluate to something recognized as a function. Currently ELisp does, but I think it's something better avoided. I hope in some distant future we can make the types `function` and `cons` be a mutually-exclusive. - the function value `(lambda () ,v) returns a function that will evaluate v using the old dynamically-scoped dialect which we're trying to phase out. > (isn't, loosely speaking, hiding evals one of things macros > buy us? `eval` is used sometimes in macros, but most macros neither use nor hide `eval`, AFAIK, no. > ... the version without eval looks more readable to me). My own taste is reflects in the fact that my local Emacs rejects (lambda ...) as a valid function value ;-) Stefan