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 12:08:10 -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="469"; 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 18:08:52 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 1k0S9s-000AbD-45 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 18:08:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38148 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0S9r-0000Yk-5b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:08:51 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59680) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0S9J-0008Oz-QM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:08:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:35316) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0S9H-0000PW-IY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:08:16 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A550F1025E9; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:08:13 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B49F4101E25; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:08:11 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1595952491; bh=rrYaOOFJPDwrAnvAnuQxP+0wiFtCY+GBeE11c2+PeuA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=owf73LDakq7CJGNquvuYfcrHW/+uofaWPFTWPbR/+rp/mazEWnT5UQV+luEOhaUYr yDH+W1LbtTyF7r1NQ3U2eRaMColyt86ajtHAhwuUzEvqYefzTa8i7s9HJdpJdg5DkN 1eDXI3+zYsvJuMcJwMY5iWL5Xcpmsw3ieG6fTMswTzw6VFrYkhkU2LrhAsgBrK1qVr Z21bhgQYXUAN/qz0s3GH2kvwBr+gJO/LZdGhB1rRihVwWcg4mBU0uKWWwU38jF1SLw IXAIx6T+GiT+ATfAZqVtrqzzyqyJNLoiCXHT2VIAZ5/Z3vCfGlOLnL8nfRJ6jtWooH kXWpvTzO8deSw== Original-Received: from milanesa (unknown [104.247.229.155]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 75ABF12064D; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:08:11 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: ("Mattias =?windows-1252?Q?Engdeg=E5rd=22's?= message of "Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:18:01 +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:253306 Archived-At: >> 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. > > Yes, sorry, I meant that I wasn't sure whether could be synthesised (by > cconv) without the user actually ever feeding an explicit 'closure' > construct into the compiler. After all, 'closure' isn't really in the > language, is it? No, indeed, it's not in the language. The way it usually shows up is when a macro stuffs a *value* in there, e.g. `(,(get foo 'frobbing-function) ...) The more correct alternative `(funcall ',(get foo 'frobbing-function) ...) tends to suffer from false-positive warnings about quoted lambdas when the `frobbing-function` was not byte-compiled and comes from a file that still doesn't use lexical-binding. Stefan