GNU bug report logs - #11460
24.1.50; doc string of `assert'

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 11460 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 11460 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
Subject: 24.1.50; doc string of `assert'
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 08:06:04 -0700

"Second arg SHOW-ARGS means to include arguments of FORM in message."
 
How so?  Which values of SHOW-ARGS mean that?

And what on earth are the "arguments" of FORM?  FORM is presumably a sexp, which
is evaluated and returns nil or non-nil.  A sexp does not have "arguments".

It's not at all clear what you mean here.

In GNU Emacs 24.1.50.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2012-05-06 on MARVIN
Bzr revision: 108144 cyd <at> gnu.org-20120507053738-5ovifsb71cmamn2f
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
Configured using:
 `configure --with-gcc (4.6) --no-opt --enable-checking --cflags
 -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/libXpm-3.5.8/include
 -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/libXpm-3.5.8/src
 -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/libpng-dev_1.4.3-1/include
 -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/zlib-dev_1.2.5-2/include
 -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/giflib-4.1.4-1/include
 -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/jpeg-6b-4/include
 -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/tiff-3.8.2-1/include
 -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/gnutls-3.0.9/include
 -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/libiconv-1.13.1-1-dev/include
 -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/libxml2-2.7.8/include/libxml2'
 

Message #8 received at 11460 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: <11460 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: RE: bug#11460: 24.1.50; doc string of `assert'
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 16:55:53 -0700

ping

Message #11 received at 11460 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 11460 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#11460: 24.1.50; doc string of `assert'
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 20:17:06 -0800

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> writes:

> "Second arg SHOW-ARGS means to include arguments of FORM in message."
>
> How so?  Which values of SHOW-ARGS mean that?
>
> And what on earth are the "arguments" of FORM?  FORM is presumably a sexp, which
> is evaluated and returns nil or non-nil.  A sexp does not have "arguments".
>
> It's not at all clear what you mean here.

Looking at the code, I'm still not sure what the meaning here is.

       (let ((sargs (and show-args
                         (delq nil (mapcar (lambda (x)
                                             (unless (macroexp-const-p x)
                                               x))
                                           (cdr form))))))

So...  if the elements in the rest of FORM evaluate to the same value,
they're included in the error output, but if not, not?  Uhm...

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

Message #14 received at 11460 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>, 11460 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#11460: 24.1.50; doc string of `assert'
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 14:36:26 -0500

> Looking at the code, I'm still not sure what the meaning here is.

>        (let ((sargs (and show-args
>                          (delq nil (mapcar (lambda (x)
>                                              (unless (macroexp-const-p x)
>                                                x))
>                                            (cdr form))))))

> So...  if the elements in the rest of FORM evaluate to the same value,
> they're included in the error output, but if not, not?  Uhm...

FWIW, this part of `cl-assert' is not only poorly documented, but it's
poorly designed.  And it doesn't have the excuse that it's inherited
from Common Lisp.
So I'd rather not document that mis-feature in any more detail.


        Stefan

Message #17 received at 11460 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, Lars Ingebrigtsen
 <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 11460 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#11460: 24.1.50; doc string of `assert'
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:14:37 -0800 (PST)

> FWIW, this part of `cl-assert' is not only poorly documented, but
> it's poorly designed.  And it doesn't have the excuse that it's
> inherited from Common Lisp.
>
> So I'd rather not document that mis-feature in any more detail.

In that case, my request would be that the entire bug be recorded
and kept open for future fixing (e.g., todo list or whatever):
design + implementation + doc.

IOW, let's not use the fact that the design, in addition to the
doc, is faulty as an excuse to just drop this.  If it needs
fixing and you cannot or do not want to tackle that now, then
it should be kept open for fixing later.

Message #20 received at 11460 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>, 11460 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#11460: 24.1.50; doc string of `assert'
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 18:28:54 -0800

Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> FWIW, this part of `cl-assert' is not only poorly documented, but it's
> poorly designed.  And it doesn't have the excuse that it's inherited
> from Common Lisp.
> So I'd rather not document that mis-feature in any more detail.

Ok; closing.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

Message #27 received at 11460 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, Stefan Monnier
 <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 11460 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#11460: 24.1.50; doc string of `assert'
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 18:42:50 -0800 (PST)

> > FWIW, this part of `cl-assert' is not only poorly documented, but
> > it's poorly designed.  And it doesn't have the excuse that it's
> > inherited from Common Lisp.
> > So I'd rather not document that mis-feature in any more detail.
> 
> Ok; closing.

That is a cop-out.  What has been uncovered is that instead of
a minor, doc bug, there is a major bug.

If you close this as being only the doc part, then you really
should open a new bug for the whole problem: design, implementation,
and doc.

C'mon folks.  It is not just about closing bugs.  It is about
recording problems that need fixing.  And hopefully, one day,
fixing them.

It is quite distressing to see the reaction of "Ok; closing",
if that is to be the only response.  A bug should be recorded
for this major problem, and left open until it is fixed.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.