From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Matt Armstrong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#46819: 28.0.50; Undesireable warning: Empty let body from the `benchmark-run' implementation Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 16:04:42 -0800 Message-ID: References: <87h7lwmgaj.fsf@gnus.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="35595"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 46819@debbugs.gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen , Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 01 01:05:21 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 1lGW3t-00098o-OI for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 01:05:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42858 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lGW3s-0006T1-Ng for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:05:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51304) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lGW3a-0006SK-AT for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:05:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:36003) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lGW3Z-0008El-TM for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:05:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lGW3Z-0006w0-Nh for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:05:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Matt Armstrong Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2021 00:05:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 46819 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 46819-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B46819.161455709726643 (code B ref 46819); Mon, 01 Mar 2021 00:05:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 46819) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Mar 2021 00:04:57 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47549 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lGW3U-0006vf-UW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:04:57 -0500 Original-Received: from relay9-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.199]:42921) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lGW3S-0006vO-7j for 46819@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:04:55 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 24.113.169.116 Original-Received: from matts-mbp-2016.lan (24-113-169-116.wavecable.com [24.113.169.116]) (Authenticated sender: matt@rfc20.org) by relay9-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1DB76FF809; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 00:04:45 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <87h7lwmgaj.fsf@gnus.org> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:201040 Archived-At: Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > Stefan Monnier writes: > >> It'd be easy to put an explicit nil in the loop's body, but.... >> >> The idea was that in actual (non-macroexpanded) source code, empty >> let bodies are usually the result of a misplaced paren. But it's >> probably more often annoying than useful since we can't easily >> distinguish a "let from source code" from a "let from a macro >> expansion". >> >> So I'm also voting to revert that change. Any objection? > > It is a nice and helpful warning, though, so if it could be fixed in > another way, that'd be great. (But I have no idea how, of course.) It might be hard to fix in the general case. Think about this example: (let (...) (some-macro blah)) What if that macro expands to nothing, based on some criteria not entirely under programmer control? Is the code "wrong"?