From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17498: 24.4.50; This function has a compiler macro `yes--cmacro'. Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 08:24:57 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1400243189 11750 80.91.229.3 (16 May 2014 12:26:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 12:26:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 17498@debbugs.gnu.org To: Leo Liu Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 16 14:26:21 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WlHDQ-0001Xs-DZ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 May 2014 14:26:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35312 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WlHDP-0006sv-Qg for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 May 2014 08:26:19 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37109) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WlHDG-0006rj-4G for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 16 May 2014 08:26:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WlHD8-00075D-HU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 16 May 2014 08:26:10 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:43763) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WlHD8-000757-EH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 16 May 2014 08:26:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WlHD7-0007UA-RZ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 16 May 2014 08:26:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 12:26:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17498 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 17498-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17498.140024310328703 (code B ref 17498); Fri, 16 May 2014 12:26:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17498) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 May 2014 12:25:03 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36827 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WlHCA-0007Ss-Ka for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 16 May 2014 08:25:03 -0400 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:43472) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WlHC7-0007SL-RO for 17498@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 16 May 2014 08:25:00 -0400 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id s4GCOwBW031625; Fri, 16 May 2014 08:24:58 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id D6AF8601E4; Fri, 16 May 2014 08:24:57 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Leo Liu's message of "Fri, 16 May 2014 09:28:06 +0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV4943=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9378 : core <4943> : inlines <879> : streams <1184456> : uri <1758412> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:89159 Archived-At: > But this is different from emacs 22 and 23. And it looks > counter-intuitive. I would expect macro expansion not to do much other > than transforming the code passed in. So I am curious is current > behaviour due to the byte-compiler i.e. if we don't do it this way it > won't work? Well, there's always some other way, but yes it's made so that it works when byte-compiling. Stefan