From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs Subject: Re: compilation-next-error - extra `let' binding? Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:16:08 -0500 Message-ID: References: <005c01c86a82$3803b940$a350908d@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1202613389 13807 80.91.229.12 (10 Feb 2008 03:16:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 03:16:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 10 04:16:51 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JO2gT-0001f0-Vr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:16:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JO2g0-0003kE-Ey for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:16:20 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JO2fv-0003ii-Io for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:16:15 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JO2fu-0003hV-B7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:16:14 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JO2fu-0003hJ-5D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:16:14 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JO2ft-0005IA-UH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:16:14 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166] helo=mx10.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JO2ft-00008H-P2 for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:16:13 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JO2fq-0005HK-Je for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:16:13 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.pppoe.ca ([206.248.154.182]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JO2fq-0005HG-86 for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:16:10 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAHr7rUfO+JwNdGdsb2JhbACQNgEwlxd7 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,328,1199682000"; d="scan'208";a="13988634" Original-Received: from smtp.pppoe.ca ([65.39.196.238]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2008 22:16:09 -0500 Original-Received: from pastel.home ([206.248.156.13]) by smtp.pppoe.ca (Internet Mail Server v1.0) with ESMTP id QFA61709; Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:16:09 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id DB32E800F; Sat, 9 Feb 2008 22:16:08 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <005c01c86a82$3803b940$a350908d@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:41:29 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:88607 gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs:20973 Archived-At: > Can't tell for sure without checking all of the code called by the > body of the `let', but it looks like the `let' binding of `loc' in > `compilation-next-error' is superfluous: > (let* ((msg (get-text-property pt 'message)) > (loc (car msg)) ; ??????? > last) > If so, taking out the binding would make the code easier to > understand. If not, adding a comment for it might make the code easier > to understand. It's actually used by the compilation-loop macro. I've added a comment to this effect. Stefan