From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 23:55:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.14013212599148 (code B ref -1); Wed, 28 May 2014 23:55:01 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 May 2014 23:54:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34944 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wpnfn-0002NU-2I for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:54:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42746) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wpnfk-0002NF-Pt for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:54:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WpnfU-0000gq-U6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:54:11 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:44234) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WpnfU-0000gm-Rh for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:54:00 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44406) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WpnfL-0005Ie-KU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:54:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WpnfC-0000dp-Sc for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:53:51 -0400 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:49099) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WpnfC-0000di-Lk for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:53:42 -0400 Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id s4SNrdgE027016 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 23:53:40 GMT Received: from aserz7022.oracle.com (aserz7022.oracle.com [141.146.126.231]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4SNrbJd002589 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 23:53:39 GMT Received: from abhmp0020.oracle.com (abhmp0020.oracle.com [141.146.116.26]) by aserz7022.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4SNrbgO013112 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 23:53:37 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 16:53:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) The text states incorrectly that the example defines an equivalent of built-in function `1+', but it does not. The function defined in the example is equivalent to this one, which is not equivalent to `1+': (defun 1+-sum (&rest args) "Return one more than the sum of the args." (1+ (apply #'+ args))) This function accepts any number of args, including zero. `1+' requires a single arg. As it stands, this example is liable to confuse more than help. In GNU Emacs 24.4.50.1 (i686-pc-mingw32) of 2014-05-25 on ODIEONE Bzr revision: 117153 tsdh@gnu.org-20140525174054-vzeh4zeg00a1ley8 Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601 Configured using: `configure --prefix=3D/c/Devel/emacs/snapshot/trunk --enable-checking=3Dyes,glyphs 'CFLAGS=3D-O0 -g3' LDFLAGS=3D-Lc:/Devel/emacs/lib 'CPPFLAGS=3D-DGC_MCHECK=3D1 -Ic:/Devel/emacs/include'' From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Michael Heerdegen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 18:42:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Drew Adams Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.140389450029374 (code B ref 17623); Fri, 27 Jun 2014 18:42:02 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Jun 2014 18:41:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35273 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0b5f-0007dh-U9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 14:41:40 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.12]:58198) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0b5c-0007dP-VS for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 14:41:38 -0400 Received: from drachen.dragon ([94.217.127.201]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LeLWz-1WJESV1rf3-00qBoC; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 20:41:30 +0200 From: Michael Heerdegen References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 20:41:29 +0200 In-Reply-To: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> (Drew Adams's message of "Wed, 28 May 2014 16:53:35 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:oTt6d4cf2Wo1bHanZ3VIm1gymFv1Arbl7tBsWYLKE2dOJnnTZB8 4AzLRSFKxZ7yIF1MhfNpcnTVujOZ5MQB+YIehM/i9ieLfCUgMq2ueCbYrSxGiBj7O7GcITk KaAfMwsw6v5wQqBH+hYulLjim50I9kFreQEXBSLqPVc4XMpI2qmlHh2beK+9RVjrfL03tz9 uBNqGnHF4GzOxWPzwUsnQ== X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) Drew Adams writes: > The text states incorrectly that the example defines an equivalent of > built-in function `1+', but it does not. The function defined in the > example is equivalent to this one, which is not equivalent to `1+': > [...] > As it stands, this example is liable to confuse more than help. I think you're right. Drew, how would you reformulate the paragraph so that it's not confusing? Or should we try to find a different example? Maybe something like (defalias 'string-empty-p (apply-partially #'string= "")) ? Michael. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 01:37:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Michael Heerdegen Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.140391937917642 (code B ref 17623); Sat, 28 Jun 2014 01:37:02 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Jun 2014 01:36:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35499 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0hYw-0004aT-P0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 21:36:19 -0400 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:23856) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0hYt-0004aA-51 for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 21:36:16 -0400 Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id s5S1a8CX007828 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 28 Jun 2014 01:36:09 GMT Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s5S1a68p008692 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 28 Jun 2014 01:36:08 GMT Received: from abhmp0019.oracle.com (abhmp0019.oracle.com [141.146.116.25]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5S1a5Xi005544; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 01:36:05 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 18:36:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> In-Reply-To: <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > should we try to find a different example? Maybe something like > (defalias 'string-empty-p (apply-partially #'string=3D "")) ? Yes, we should. But forget about giving an example that (re)defines a function that is a built-in or is otherwise predefined. And again, it is better to have an example that illustrates and takes advantage of the fact that the function returned accepts any number of args. `string=3D' accepts only two args. The signature of `string-empty-p' shows that it accepts any number of arguments, and it says nothing about their type, but `string-empty-p' raises an error if it is passed anything other than 2 strings. Nothing wrong with that, but it is not so clear as an illustration of `apply-partially'. And it is better to have an example where the function passed does not have _only_ an &rest parameter (in which case it could be applied to just the first argument anyway). This example uses a function (+) that accepts any number of args, but its only parameter is an &rest parameter, so it is not a great way to show `apply-partially': (defalias '3+ (apply-partially '+ 3) "Return 3 plus the sum of the arguments.") (3+ 2 5 1) =3D> 11 That is better than an example that uses a function that accepts only a fixed number of arguments, but it is not as informative as examples like these, which accept a first arg that is a string and other args of any type. (defun present-list (frmt &rest things) "Use format string FRMT to present a list of THINGS." (format frmt things)) (defalias 'list-en (apply-partially #'present-list "The list: `%S'") "Return a string that presents a list of arguments.") (defalias 'list-fr (apply-partially #'present-list "La liste : `%S'") "Renvoyer une chaine qui presente use liste d'arguments.") (list-en 1 2 3) =3D> "The list: `(1 2 3)'" (list-fr '(x 42) '(y alpha)) =3D> "La liste : `((x 42) (y alpha))'" However, instead of (or in addition to) showing such an example, we could show the simple equivalence of these two (for all FUN, ARG1, and ARGS): (apply (apply-partially FUN ARG1) ARGS) =3D (apply FUN ARG1 ARGS) That alone tells users what `apply-partially' is all about. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Michael Heerdegen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:54:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Drew Adams Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.140397081022391 (code B ref 17623); Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:54:01 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Jun 2014 15:53:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36274 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0uwU-0005p3-2Y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:53:30 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.12]:58765) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0uwR-0005oo-Q1 for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:53:28 -0400 Received: from drachen.dragon ([94.217.127.201]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MJCSM-1WyB7924Ow-002s6W; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:53:17 +0200 From: Michael Heerdegen References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:53:15 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> (Drew Adams's message of "Fri, 27 Jun 2014 18:36:04 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:cu51ckA41T3MgyhLhPw5xzJ1jLGXTY+g6Zxag5uZnkuVZ+kVsdu s0ufdqhV+xERNHTO2ZLLLTWQVJ6ioEIpUOD5DE+fevHvs0ZrZU7cIxq18oPGrt0ZkDjOZGX ET2TQmTH3R/l5Onoagdyq9fJyAG96DhYX5l4HvTadGmV3YzqWLDU8VUcppGSZWXWDF3t7L7 P/Rk7UMowncixaa/gTX7A== X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) Hi, BTW, the second sentence here from (info "(elisp) Calling Functions") is confusing too wrt what it says about arguments. ,---------------------------------------------------------------------- | The act of fixing some of the function=E2=80=99s arguments is | called "partial application" of the function(1). The result is a new | function that accepts the rest of arguments and calls the original | function with all the arguments combined. `---------------------------------------------------------------------- IMHO we should be more clearer about arguments, but then we can keep the 1+ example. I think it would be more important to say that `apply-partially` is most useful in combination with functionals, as it is explained later on that info page. That the result accepts any number of arguments is more kind of an implementation detail. Michael. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:56:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Michael Heerdegen Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.140397453429360 (code B ref 17623); Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:56:01 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Jun 2014 16:55:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36286 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0vuW-0007dQ-US for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:55:33 -0400 Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:38211) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0vuR-0007d0-RG for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:55:29 -0400 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N7W00L001EZ8100@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:55:21 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N7W00LX91O84B70@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:55:20 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:55:10 +0300 From: Eli Zaretskii In-reply-to: <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il Message-id: <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) > From: Michael Heerdegen > Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:53:15 +0200 > Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org > > BTW, the second sentence here from (info "(elisp) Calling Functions") is > confusing too wrt what it says about arguments. > > ,---------------------------------------------------------------------- > | The act of fixing some of the function’s arguments is > | called "partial application" of the function(1). The result is a new > | function that accepts the rest of arguments and calls the original > | function with all the arguments combined. > `---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IMHO we should be more clearer about arguments, but then we can keep the > 1+ example. I think it would be more important to say that > `apply-partially` is most useful in combination with functionals, as it > is explained later on that info page. That the result accepts any > number of arguments is more kind of an implementation detail. Sorry, I don't understand this critique. Perhaps if you suggested an alternative wording, it would become clear what is it that confused you about the current text. Thanks. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Michael Heerdegen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:54:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.14039780313384 (code B ref 17623); Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:54:01 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Jun 2014 17:53:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36310 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0wow-0000sV-6h for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:53:50 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.11]:65205) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0wot-0000sC-9F for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:53:48 -0400 Received: from drachen.dragon ([94.217.127.201]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MKZy7-1Wz1o029vb-0022GP; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:53:35 +0200 From: Michael Heerdegen References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:53:34 +0200 In-Reply-To: <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:55:10 +0300") Message-ID: <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:YRmKD7lsu1O+dUCP2IQRC92aq+OAIiZPuZEuSz5cYiWMyb3kLdB Erf5w31jTiNGsq1BVpW9OVvOFdo9nrT95/0WqcQWb/BjWq57vJyMTkfP/fvpusjwOZF/ipP rmB4Lyjp2OVNKW1ScWRQP1ZZdm2JUsixxTAmmHQ0Obpp7yK88DED46EPn7OWf+zd4xFLGvX vvgVpU9Yhg07pnPQiB2Fg== X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) Eli Zaretskii writes: > Sorry, I don't understand this critique. Perhaps if you suggested an > alternative wording, it would become clear what is it that confused > you about the current text. There's nothing wrong per see in the current text, but it sounds as if `apply-partially` would somehow analyze the argument list of its first argument. But it's semantic is very simple. Say that (apply-partially f arg_1 ... arg_n) is equivalent to (lambda (&rest args) (apply f arg_1 ... arg_n args)) With that, what we currently have an ok elucidation of that definition. And I think that the paragraph about `apply-partially` should be merged into the later text talking about functionals, because the main use case of `apply-partially` is to construct anonymous functions for usage as argument to some other function. Michael. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:46:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Michael Heerdegen Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.14039811459194 (code B ref 17623); Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:46:02 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Jun 2014 18:45:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36323 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0xdA-0002OE-7P for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:45:44 -0400 Received: from mtaout25.012.net.il ([80.179.55.181]:52998) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0xd5-0002Nk-4M for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:45:41 -0400 Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout25.012.net.il by mtaout25.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N7W00D00621IN00@mtaout25.012.net.il> for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 21:41:31 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout25.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N7W00D2K6L7OG20@mtaout25.012.net.il>; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 21:41:31 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 21:45:22 +0300 From: Eli Zaretskii In-reply-to: <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il Message-id: <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) > From: Michael Heerdegen > Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:53:34 +0200 > > There's nothing wrong per see in the current text, but it sounds as if > `apply-partially` would somehow analyze the argument list of its first > argument. Where does it say that? It says the result is a new function that will call the original with all the arguments combined. There's nothing about analysis in that text. > Say that > > (apply-partially f arg_1 ... arg_n) > > is equivalent to > > (lambda (&rest args) (apply f arg_1 ... arg_n args)) Sorry, I don't see how this is an improvement. Accidentally, the current text is a bit different from what you cited: -- Function: apply-partially func &rest args This function returns a new function which, when called, will call FUNC with the list of arguments composed from ARGS and additional arguments specified at the time of the call. If FUNC accepts N arguments, then a call to `apply-partially' with `M < N' arguments will produce a new function of `N - M' arguments. > And I think that the paragraph about `apply-partially` should be merged > into the later text talking about functionals, because the main use case > of `apply-partially` is to construct anonymous functions for usage as > argument to some other function. If you mean this: It is common for Lisp functions to accept functions as arguments or find them in data structures (especially in hook variables and property lists) and call them using `funcall' or `apply'. Functions that accept function arguments are often called "functionals". Sometimes, when you call a functional, it is useful to supply a no-op function as the argument. Here are two different kinds of no-op function: then it directly follows the part we were talking about. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:33:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Eli Zaretskii , Michael Heerdegen Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.140398397814379 (code B ref 17623); Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:33:01 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Jun 2014 19:32:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36331 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0yMr-0003jq-Az for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:32:57 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:40317) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0yMo-0003jS-NU for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:32:55 -0400 Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id s5SJWlKm028748 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:32:48 GMT Received: from userz7022.oracle.com (userz7022.oracle.com [156.151.31.86]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5SJWkHY015307 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:32:47 GMT Received: from abhmp0019.oracle.com (abhmp0019.oracle.com [141.146.116.25]) by userz7022.oracle.com (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5SJWjEZ014269; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:32:46 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <4abc9afe-2a24-428f-bd36-4ec53f45b990@default> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:32:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams References: <<9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de>> <<1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de>> <<8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de>> <<83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org>> In-Reply-To: <<83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > It is common for Lisp functions to accept functions as arguments or > find them in data structures (especially in hook variables and property > lists) and call them using `funcall' or `apply'. Functions that accept > function arguments are often called "functionals". > Sometimes, when you call a functional, ... No, they are not "often" called functionals. They are far more commonly called "higher-order functions", especially in the context of programming. FWIW, I suggest you replace "functional" with that more recognizable term. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Michael Heerdegen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:38:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.140398424514869 (code B ref 17623); Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:38:01 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Jun 2014 19:37:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36336 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0yRA-0003rl-Mb for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:37:25 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.12]:64936) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0yR7-0003rS-Is for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:37:22 -0400 Received: from drachen.dragon ([94.217.127.201]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LudKu-1WaofE3yGe-00zksT; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 21:37:09 +0200 From: Michael Heerdegen References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 21:37:06 +0200 In-Reply-To: <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 28 Jun 2014 21:45:22 +0300") Message-ID: <87mwcwx1ul.fsf@web.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:akjXTIyWHlGsvYcFlz9k6eFghdDNedJS7IVIq8e65oaLXLMB7HE jMWiwhClNvlRivb0faGzduYZZmHDT2O9ngYLvGkSjgykoUzIv44d+SRhzy2dWh14gYK8qi8 aHfQ5p0L1CnPs8rohSdI2wHcxwJyUtTPpgm8ZwmwGe9sFpFctxCFzkU1q8DmsYXHXiaLqnT /e2afXeOb2cg1gtZDNDsg== X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) Eli Zaretskii writes: > > Say that > > > > (apply-partially f arg_1 ... arg_n) > > > > is equivalent to > > > > (lambda (&rest args) (apply f arg_1 ... arg_n args)) > > Sorry, I don't see how this is an improvement. It's an improvement because it's short and clearer than any text that just tries to describe it. > Accidentally, the current text is a bit different from what you cited: I didn't cite anything, I just said that I don't find it clear, because I think it can be misunderstood. > > And I think that the paragraph about `apply-partially` should be merged > > into the later text talking about functionals, because the main use case > > of `apply-partially` is to construct anonymous functions for usage as > > argument to some other function. > > If you mean this: > > It is common for Lisp functions to accept functions as arguments or > find them in data structures (especially in hook variables and property > lists) and call them using `funcall' or `apply'. Functions that accept > function arguments are often called "functionals". > > Sometimes, when you call a functional, it is useful to supply a no-op > function as the argument. Here are two different kinds of no-op > function: > > then it directly follows the part we were talking about. I were talking about both parts, and that we should say that `apply-partially` is, like ignore and identity, as well mainly useful in combination with functionals. That's all. Eli, dunno why, but our discussions don't yield any results most of the time. I would like to stop here, ok? Michael. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:58:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Michael Heerdegen Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.140405385526567 (code B ref 17623); Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:58:02 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Jun 2014 14:57:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36910 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X1GXu-0006uQ-Rh for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 10:57:35 -0400 Received: from mtaout27.012.net.il ([80.179.55.183]:38329) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X1GXr-0006u7-Rt for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 10:57:33 -0400 Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout27.012.net.il by mtaout27.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N7X00700QJ2ZY00@mtaout27.012.net.il> for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 17:53:55 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout27.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N7X00256QPVIM60@mtaout27.012.net.il>; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 17:53:55 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 17:57:16 +0300 From: Eli Zaretskii In-reply-to: <87mwcwx1ul.fsf@web.de> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il Message-id: <83simn69wz.fsf@gnu.org> References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87mwcwx1ul.fsf@web.de> X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) > From: Michael Heerdegen > Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 21:37:06 +0200 > > Eli, dunno why, but our discussions don't yield any results most of the > time. I would like to stop here, ok? ??? Are you sure you didn't confuse me with some other Eli? Because I actually googled our discussions, and I see only examples to the contrary. In any case, if you want to stop the discussion, just don't reply. No need for uncalled-for semi-offensive remarks. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 21:47:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Michael Heerdegen Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.140407839812072 (code B ref 17623); Sun, 29 Jun 2014 21:47:02 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Jun 2014 21:46:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37040 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X1Mvl-00038d-64 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 17:46:37 -0400 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:43773) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X1Mvi-00038I-8k for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 17:46:34 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArYGAIDvNVNLd+D9/2dsb2JhbABZgwaDSr0vgw6BFxd0giUBAQEBAgFWIwULCzQSFBgNJIgECNIZF456B4Q4BKkZgWqBcYFbIQ X-IPAS-Result: ArYGAIDvNVNLd+D9/2dsb2JhbABZgwaDSr0vgw6BFxd0giUBAQEBAgFWIwULCzQSFBgNJIgECNIZF456B4Q4BKkZgWqBcYFbIQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,753,1389762000"; d="scan'208";a="69915402" Received: from 75-119-224-253.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([75.119.224.253]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 29 Jun 2014 17:46:28 -0400 Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 08CEE66138; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 17:46:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier Message-ID: References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 17:46:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> (Michael Heerdegen's message of "Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:53:34 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) > There's nothing wrong per see in the current text, but it sounds as if > `apply-partially` would somehow analyze the argument list of its first > argument. But it's semantic is very simple. > Say that > (apply-partially f arg_1 ... arg_n) > is equivalent to > (lambda (&rest args) (apply f arg_1 ... arg_n args)) This equivalence is not true either. E.g. (prog1 (apply-partially #'message format) (setq format "hello")) BTW, `apply-partially' is mostly a crutch to have "simple closures" in a dynamically scoped setting. In code that uses lexical-binding, it's generally better to use a straight closure. Stefan From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505) X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org From: help-debbugs@gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System) To: Drew Adams Subject: bug#17623: closed (Re: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions') Message-ID: References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> X-Gnu-PR-Message: they-closed 17623 X-Gnu-PR-Package: emacs Reply-To: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 05:26:04 +0000 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1634966764-4771-1" This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1634966764-4771-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Your bug report #17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Callin= g Functions' which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed. The explanation is attached below, along with your original report. If you require more details, please reply to 17623@debbugs.gnu.org. --=20 17623: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D17623 GNU Bug Tracking System Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems ------------=_1634966764-4771-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at 17623-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2021 05:25:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34148 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1me9Wj-0001Ce-Ti for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 01:25:06 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f177.google.com ([209.85.214.177]:40808) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1me9Wg-0001C3-33 for 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 01:25:03 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f177.google.com with SMTP id v20so4167048plo.7 for <17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 22:25:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:user-agent :mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=R6tSNp7Vzt05kwbcxIgpbtdPvd7NTYMRWlLqE81UEZ4=; b=SeivKJiUm6xS3wf9wtfv7PmtHOr535bW2shVuTewdJkZw4//5UIfG9/LcdYWKlfwQe VgeNwNRS803Vsb+dQ7ktX3+Rwv8Q/w2AeGOX0sE5cFpx7W6YVfDFpCuX5Fb/4Oy/e8lh B+4j7zhQMcOTM/76hZotA9pTrD7i5caBOAVBHbNM9nFq/KlUgIjOzw0nkdTGQW3Tvkaa GpqzK7J5PXT1GQBVguC+abOV9W/wycjFsLJTH2SE2DeP+fphesb7EgcEHlgh4o7Ff6fL 1OC+e/dTmwyngyb2KgcJHaQstaCzpWH0ynr/XHLw0/hkdkskmhdHAXsAF/PhSDrA7Q4G 0ywQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533hD2xSVhyO858E/3ZEXOxbzC9IcX37Yo50JJIVc2Xw8ZgKFiyl /FwbIQX0DfVyYLMMXSf+IqufkBelZenL4tv1RYE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzWL79PvGWwoLBN1Qs04b7mKdXUHea+BqsoSyRu1wC9M1n5Vy88dQtUARA5mSEDEHnfkN3fgvnE2fL2n3N+y1o= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:c7c3:b0:140:2033:662c with SMTP id r3-20020a170902c7c300b001402033662cmr3664943pla.32.1634966696230; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 22:24:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 22:24:55 -0700 From: Stefan Kangas In-Reply-To: <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 28 Jun 2014 21:45:22 +0300") References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 22:24:55 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 17623-done Cc: Michael Heerdegen , 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Say that >> >> (apply-partially f arg_1 ... arg_n) >> >> is equivalent to >> >> (lambda (&rest args) (apply f arg_1 ... arg_n args)) > > Sorry, I don't see how this is an improvement. > > Accidentally, the current text is a bit different from what you cited: > > -- Function: apply-partially func &rest args > This function returns a new function which, when called, will call > FUNC with the list of arguments composed from ARGS and additional > arguments specified at the time of the call. If FUNC accepts N > arguments, then a call to `apply-partially' with `M < N' arguments > will produce a new function of `N - M' arguments. > >> And I think that the paragraph about `apply-partially` should be merged >> into the later text talking about functionals, because the main use case >> of `apply-partially` is to construct anonymous functions for usage as >> argument to some other function. > > If you mean this: > > It is common for Lisp functions to accept functions as arguments or > find them in data structures (especially in hook variables and property > lists) and call them using `funcall' or `apply'. Functions that accept > function arguments are often called "functionals". > > Sometimes, when you call a functional, it is useful to supply a no-op > function as the argument. Here are two different kinds of no-op > function: > > then it directly follows the part we were talking about. There was a discussion here about how to improve the 'apply-partially' documentation, but it didn't yield any concrete suggestions for improvements. I read the text we have now, and I find it clear with regards to the questions raised in this thread, so I'm closing this bug report. If this conclusion is incorrect and this is still an issue, please reply to this email (use "Reply to all" in your email client) and we might reconsider. We are more likely to reconsider if such a request comes with a concrete suggestion for how to improve this text, preferably in the form of a patch. Thanks. ------------=_1634966764-4771-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 May 2014 23:54:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34944 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wpnfn-0002NU-2I for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:54:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42746) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wpnfk-0002NF-Pt for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:54:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WpnfU-0000gq-U6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:54:11 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:44234) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WpnfU-0000gm-Rh for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:54:00 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44406) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WpnfL-0005Ie-KU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:54:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WpnfC-0000dp-Sc for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:53:51 -0400 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:49099) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WpnfC-0000di-Lk for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:53:42 -0400 Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id s4SNrdgE027016 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 23:53:40 GMT Received: from aserz7022.oracle.com (aserz7022.oracle.com [141.146.126.231]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4SNrbJd002589 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 23:53:39 GMT Received: from abhmp0020.oracle.com (abhmp0020.oracle.com [141.146.116.26]) by aserz7022.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4SNrbgO013112 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 23:53:37 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 16:53:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) The text states incorrectly that the example defines an equivalent of built-in function `1+', but it does not. The function defined in the example is equivalent to this one, which is not equivalent to `1+': (defun 1+-sum (&rest args) "Return one more than the sum of the args." (1+ (apply #'+ args))) This function accepts any number of args, including zero. `1+' requires a single arg. As it stands, this example is liable to confuse more than help. In GNU Emacs 24.4.50.1 (i686-pc-mingw32) of 2014-05-25 on ODIEONE Bzr revision: 117153 tsdh@gnu.org-20140525174054-vzeh4zeg00a1ley8 Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601 Configured using: `configure --prefix=3D/c/Devel/emacs/snapshot/trunk --enable-checking=3Dyes,glyphs 'CFLAGS=3D-O0 -g3' LDFLAGS=3D-Lc:/Devel/emacs/lib 'CPPFLAGS=3D-DGC_MCHECK=3D1 -Ic:/Devel/emacs/include'' ------------=_1634966764-4771-1-- From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Michael Heerdegen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 09:45:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Stefan Kangas Cc: 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii Received: via spool by 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org id=D17623.16349822736280 (code D ref 17623); Sat, 23 Oct 2021 09:45:01 +0000 Received: (at 17623-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2021 09:44:33 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34397 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meDZp-0001dE-B8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 05:44:33 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.3]:51161) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meDZl-0001cy-Ga for 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 05:44:31 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=dbaedf251592; t=1634982263; bh=zGiXDBnx1ARqwFN2hTupWP/Rdz61FmFNjo/J3Owk9gg=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=GUDTSksGlcyoVbPCCvdQp0rmkhSri4UeTz+lZhnm1Vu4Zvg1oCuFFS0SVGS9RzbeF V0wiuNrfykFJzrMN/vGU7+ccL/kCSZSRcUXW7/TnzYsxI4u8jgNQ77DtHf3O/4+ZMJ RRlu9dKxdF+xGUQpvVLGd022j7PJQC0MbCm6L65Y= X-UI-Sender-Class: c548c8c5-30a9-4db5-a2e7-cb6cb037b8f9 Received: from drachen.dragon ([92.208.225.87]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb006 [213.165.67.108]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MuF8z-1myd8l3Jhl-00u72Y; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:44:22 +0200 From: Michael Heerdegen References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:44:21 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Kangas's message of "Fri, 22 Oct 2021 22:24:55 -0700") Message-ID: <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:Ff6l5Af+PMq25SPDX5ApFdWkacJSM5y1WPVoVlnH6fkmNcaefob SX9KIkNKMzBU+63qt5tGCI1D5aXTrIfzEgxmSnZjHO5U2dXGdrFxVoNTzDanA/+/ZJNbWQf tqC/0s1GdTSm4w/u8WAFthi07H9VAcU4VO2/kNbhR8ZGmsLDCJXW1OOzm+vg6b/dknOyJZf VG83XaWkv3xi8mPkzflJQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:ErJ0y7HUYjI=:jgrIg8exJ4njosQBatO2/E m09lNa9VZ+dnaYCJ7Y8mmoDZJuYUxq14QwnsGRY0cMmoVBAQo7UIHRBRuLmPMtEOg3zkZimbD CSwHOw5YnxafKv3/aHZl6NNzAcTEi2kiT8qdlbl4ZWzKdlj57sQ+tjXkuSzTSeAWCh1k1cgRW av3JA5566Z25w1AGpPpIAqiI06o6yu8TTiZQN8JPBmla8mZ7E7zA68USSqQMVxchsLRfVqpF8 6ZXdlX5mbYbBtDdIJOp1LrHjLhOaYpyNJfc1464gCJ3ZxmnbRgJNNFR5KUFwrfisoG1Y+FjT3 ENZQKZi83MIfDxSCWAAtUKHgcFvYiJ29kSxRRDuXeiccJSb502fKWt0+snYCDVgxS4taHcPE4 GwVPvev6LwF3H+OTvxeGSztdjBD3abFPh/akDIvA42eNtgiLFz4c37an3tLJN3L471gD7CD1n FMo2dbKe/jWO1Gw9Hi6x0tHV71Bel4Zh0DRsojyvGBhFr3E8dr83qU8VpTpuitCcojo+qVQse mUboWoV+o0HfCL62quukL11mhZ+l4tyV4OdVRgCMk6388qrGfDK0R/FAevNtHmAr4eDDjJwn4 +ZRP2eRpB2Pmp5SpFmuMtbT7Ou4JZhx8iRhimOFwSUMjXtVdYOWwLrbf/LKYh03iIrhLjY09h +LrHE/ZsODEDxLFtoxoQFlJ8EfZh7VjsbhbIYRzTNtcgNDD6fBPi9xtM6u49CuQmaX102lOXI JTt4/EmuEAsD1KioZTQ0bSegaLC+PPHm+YvbVbnN8JKIVX//hf6aR3NZNGYYJLYswMqHZrinD WjXqHFppRwLlkw0K0NKYmlzMhA7vKS39GF2EF6Bct/R2VnmM7DOko25fCvMLdPeutU2ShQC9v +apg0zcMgzwkryWO87b6HMa3pZCQhNHE+TbzhRl01xxsT0WJ0mESku1iT9cM6rbRRKvXWKIYH CfiDo+yTJWEtIpDLjDZnyiJ/2s0V/CwH4JWHg4jOjozGKMVDIMt9IuzqtuftfN+7aWlHYrM1X AZkfsk41ZH/IIqMtCq1SyLXPsP8WeH/eDVbxYavkAEhpQgDAotI3Dm3/8toetS5jmM0YhVUXq KpITbZ4GjpXL08= X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Stefan Kangas writes: > There was a discussion here about how to improve the 'apply-partially' > documentation, but it didn't yield any concrete suggestions for > improvements. I read the text we have now, and I find it clear with > regards to the questions raised in this thread, so I'm closing this bug > report. I disagree. The paragraph in the manual explains what the arity of the function returned by `apply-partially' would be. Directly following is an example suggesting that (apply-partially '+ 1) is equivalent to #'1+ - which obviously contradicts that preceding paragraph. I'm a bit confused that you don't consider this a problem, and also that you said there were no concrete suggestions. There were concrete suggestions for improvements. One was to simply spell out the function that is constructed. It is only one line, and would make the semantics clear. BTW, whenever I posted an example using `apply-partially', Stefan told me that it would be more efficient to write out the lambda. That aspect could also be covered: when is worth using? Or delete that paragraph, better to say nothing than to confuse readers. Michael. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Stefan Kangas Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:07:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Michael Heerdegen Cc: 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii Received: via spool by 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org id=D17623.16349871637602 (code D ref 17623); Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:07:02 +0000 Received: (at 17623-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2021 11:06:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34507 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meEqh-0001yX-4g for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:06:03 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f177.google.com ([209.85.214.177]:40637) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meEqb-0001xe-RT for 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:06:01 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f177.google.com with SMTP id v20so4524245plo.7 for <17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 04:05:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=umqXAmRRz6Mvw2rdp2+gwW4mBYuHSaAb/5a3UMtD+B4=; b=EOLspIDjzb04ei8L4aps9Bj/ubuU/J8Lv+IA94Yqcy/MDW29Lf5t38B3XgDeHGq3/C K2plINGOIHiXAJfaJ+G5ce5cOMNa2NPJIIuGgfQBSZ9GBPKug0gzCvs6O5x4rztgmtok Y2J/FhJXONI9h4+j2TjQMHjfIsmt88an09QBfl14spzRUrdSUpPLCvIZ+d0RnRgYA9Ze mdoqHPlLHeaTIfseh0fNEUDszm0WvgJB4nnHTQZqDRD9VPFI7Uu5KWaXcucOI/iAjpZ6 Fm7x4tecM4XsKiYwe5SJSHRzsKrkxa3WzCyFEw/LSIVLCAMNPKY1WFqFaAmf8cPxB1Cl 7FcA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533gKKeICj9iq83WphYLc1F6U7yYJQVztW66ahaQh/qz4nvIzihc PrlvNEe/rbirm4jmUjobsEtoWg+BGnWhFbIIGGM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzGAMKQmJuuROoEfIhh7R3jrCncsBnYqFMnW7tc1WDwuhvvJPUy3Q4GIwEx/GZ4uVnkrnnfAlfU5APNSG3xa0k= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:c7c3:b0:140:2033:662c with SMTP id r3-20020a170902c7c300b001402033662cmr4926391pla.32.1634987152172; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 04:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 04:05:51 -0700 From: Stefan Kangas In-Reply-To: <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 04:05:51 -0700 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) Michael Heerdegen writes: > I disagree. The paragraph in the manual explains what the arity of the > function returned by `apply-partially' would be. > > Directly following is an example suggesting that (apply-partially '+ 1) > is equivalent to #'1+ - which obviously contradicts that preceding > paragraph. > > I'm a bit confused that you don't consider this a problem, and also that > you said there were no concrete suggestions. I have re-read the paragraph, and I have to say that IMO it is clear as is written. But I understand that you feel that it is not. > There were concrete suggestions for improvements. One was to simply > spell out the function that is constructed. It is only one line, and > would make the semantics clear. Instead of going into all that, can't we just find an example where the arity doesn't present any problems? Any ideas for something like that? How about zerop? (defalias 'zerop (apply-partially '= 0) "Return t if argument is zero.") But I guess `=' is also N-ary... > BTW, whenever I posted an example using `apply-partially', Stefan told > me that it would be more efficient to write out the lambda. That aspect > could also be covered: when is worth using? That could be useful to add, I agree. > Or delete that paragraph, better to say nothing than to confuse readers. I think it should be kept. Performance is not the only consideration. (apply-partially #'fun foo bar baz) (lambda (&rest args) (apply #'fun foo bar baz args)) It's obviously a matter of style but I find the former easier to read than the latter. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:40:05 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Michael Heerdegen Cc: 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org, stefan@marxist.se Received: via spool by 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org id=D17623.163498916227240 (code D ref 17623); Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:40:05 +0000 Received: (at 17623-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2021 11:39:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34520 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meFMw-00075I-2s for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:39:22 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:48346) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meFMu-000755-IM for 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:39:20 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:58390) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1meFMo-0003hL-Ub; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:39:15 -0400 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=1848 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1meFMo-00033q-Gi; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:39:14 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 14:39:02 +0300 Message-Id: <83bl3g55t5.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> (message from Michael Heerdegen on Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:44:21 +0200) References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Michael Heerdegen > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:44:21 +0200 > > I disagree. The paragraph in the manual explains what the arity of the > function returned by `apply-partially' would be. > > Directly following is an example suggesting that (apply-partially '+ 1) > is equivalent to #'1+ - which obviously contradicts that preceding > paragraph. In what sense is that a contradiction? (+ 1 10) is equivalent to (1+ 10), so we have N = 2 arguments in the original function and M = 1 = N - 1 in the new one. > I'm a bit confused that you don't consider this a problem, and also that > you said there were no concrete suggestions. That suggestion doesn't make the documentation more clear, IMNSHO, unless the reader already knows about apply-partially and generally has a lot of background knowledge about Lisp and Emacs Lisp. Why are you saying the suggestion is not being considered, whereas in reality it was considered (and rejected)? > There were concrete suggestions for improvements. One was to simply > spell out the function that is constructed. It is only one line, and > would make the semantics clear. I cannot disagree more. That one line doesn't make anything clear, it just shows the implementation. > BTW, whenever I posted an example using `apply-partially', Stefan told > me that it would be more efficient to write out the lambda. That aspect > could also be covered: when is worth using? Concrete proposals for expanding the documentation of apply-partially (read: patches) will be most welcome, of course. > Or delete that paragraph, better to say nothing than to confuse readers. I object to deleting that. That text certainly helps me, so it cannot be useless, let alone harmful. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Michael Heerdegen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:59:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Stefan Kangas Cc: 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii Received: via spool by 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org id=D17623.163499032629111 (code D ref 17623); Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:59:02 +0000 Received: (at 17623-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2021 11:58:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34533 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meFfi-0007ZT-HP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:58:46 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.14]:37249) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meFfd-0007ZD-Vl for 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:58:44 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=dbaedf251592; t=1634990315; bh=9oI2mF+7EnrtWrHDaMyRKIFJFiE8i3VmTBekuE8GfT8=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=YW8reE+LrZoZdJoJ0ZKtltFhRgXmN8eCizgeiIqe6MZwI9SsG6/pwMR3mf8yAngDc 8foOT1MRD/2iwZKHddlJGa3HEN17TFZrzhKiT38zvySwXgXTQtao/4qFxVXgd5rMt7 pJqYPgqZMWZkNXJVzk1iUOeD+2Knpj5MVmTc3bG4= X-UI-Sender-Class: c548c8c5-30a9-4db5-a2e7-cb6cb037b8f9 Received: from drachen.dragon ([92.208.225.87]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb004 [213.165.67.108]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MgZLb-1mIRvo0vxf-00O0Y6; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:58:35 +0200 From: Michael Heerdegen References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:58:34 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Kangas's message of "Sat, 23 Oct 2021 04:05:51 -0700") Message-ID: <87tuh8t0k5.fsf@web.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:Sph9Zm36UYeXRzb/mX8b1KWAiFxbTUXX6sOqkVyQX94u/iJrj0P u5Zk75h5BTmwcDH0cnZ/wkpfcQkvpO/m6M4Hd2YjXQymxzEGDb5nJqZCgxZVxQYGOPY4Q6N 2xRf5F9iAPRD8lfKzHvrbiTdRMFp7Tj4Nbw4TcSyCwLTmwTStQ7TANuFjgLqWwQC8jsmxiJ Uisoz/z6EpFVqXBiXnmjA== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:XzkSh9H49po=:xC2cIlGaDidi4v49XiRp+6 SHaPWuGsJp3s5+/FZEsSixKk6KyJnzpN/ZIplRwpXpQ6GlSZN8snEXwqvmzDABp0FbXBMyCtn C1rbva2x1g5+fCyrkk0QYdyflfpawqPbVLhmGIquzNrpARnDOvjOkNS8ypZ5iwJ9J7jLkCs69 CCLksIO38Yg0AIGRgo5UPqvP952LZhayWaoSTnFCWvE/6WFvdRMBGmParqUaafcWRRrFGKZ3W Qr4FT9dqAl+HW+JfAx9BiuZtMvGfDsjDf4WyOUeb07dABAb5LKuTM9xoe2yg7KoO11c6cRE6a nETIBUIKqGRhHmXBa5A8VRSWRz0661cPQdysaxnM8z21R9HvT9gYVig3FtKQ+g9JN3A6mp7/w T5aewt1vkJTyivoHKDabm65GMyU4bpTYaRnEzuHa8+KYAKyh4QF8WdcFLlXwB9g6E8wCWCLqF cXYeHAhtOLxVOyQSEwvJ9X/235YYLGX/FeeB91vgArFupH9p0uxFiTgl5mWHPPl9RtZiopAKK 9rcd/1IrJJklG0QPcJ6OAVBvBDVXjPFHuJ0sDzi8muvvnn2wqJEiQlNhDA5ErUUkPF/fOaYBX 60icSa6GHSMWVOdyqWrAMIM+SpCSnF6hqf0p2dAMH2oLm/tW9uexA4ciAoczRZlnJrdmcURl5 2KPF+D5Ie3E20oEErMEMryEpxoAsGrynUncgTQIsriINlNsZlRxmbOGTZrwTaksHktKk8PHpt dBBUb/3d3mUdaNxZ9g4oc7vwz38A2ShpEvy9VTJnj7q3+ifrdc29F/m0QL/RDIu6CZSZsTSXN bPkD2EGiOCUq82gf0FkffC2r/H58Eg7hq9IfJHzIQ4op8Ccb5EcbFpaV+tVYlWCkb+Zvv/boq x/2CZChvCJItWAL1lfRzE/ZoksxGiQS6yc1JreeKUNU8Dmtcv+HVs7oX3vaKFMjPS2Y/3XNok FG5MBa0+qaHjNfJgLitn//2netOLwvtElWlCSh1eDA7X/gG33EMcUwfzbePMJQHoloP5KcyfK 1YQmw802OccS3P4wAB4P5WDhotYWFNVwVTZ+4brKx1xQFGsHmaGEwh4+ATCSe11UzTGSVxm7b qyyVJ14gnFfyao= X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Stefan Kangas writes: > How about zerop? > > (defalias 'zerop (apply-partially '= 0) > "Return t if argument is zero.") > > But I guess `=' is also N-ary... How about (defalias 'max-positive (apply-partially #'max 0) "Return the largest non-negative argument or 0 if all are negative.") Or something like (apply-partially #'seq-concatenate 'vector) or (defalias 'user-file-name-concat (apply-partially #'file-name-concat (expand-file-name "~/"))) ? Michael. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Michael Heerdegen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 12:45:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org, stefan@marxist.se Received: via spool by 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org id=D17623.16349930901422 (code D ref 17623); Sat, 23 Oct 2021 12:45:02 +0000 Received: (at 17623-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2021 12:44:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34634 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meGOI-0000Ms-Db for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 08:44:50 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.12]:46297) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meGOF-0000Mc-UN for 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 08:44:49 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=dbaedf251592; t=1634993081; bh=QmufUlvdNFX8lhw9ehzYzr3e991dsU5agHgg3jRvPzI=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=LgcBMVR43gQVKhepEOjytUu1/HrRvg9Qg8sfTzp132zEwINQDzJS3+pdR/IcHPaUd nQVfqL3Wvzn7kiaUx855Nwrcjzrx5BBEtfLAHoZOuz3lXd5OCxoNurZ+yF+mmga3zI G3KEzG2Kp8Z0mxDx6qJ74uAGfjsWXQ2m2KHwTp6U= X-UI-Sender-Class: c548c8c5-30a9-4db5-a2e7-cb6cb037b8f9 Received: from drachen.dragon ([92.208.225.87]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb101 [213.165.67.124]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MUFGo-1mEW3n0Lnm-00R3St; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 14:44:41 +0200 From: Michael Heerdegen References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> <83bl3g55t5.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 14:44:39 +0200 In-Reply-To: <83bl3g55t5.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 23 Oct 2021 14:39:02 +0300") Message-ID: <87ilxnuczs.fsf@web.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:7SNT7PMIsfP5+bGRZactVlvOwO9wR5wq0CdzU2e7HlDqj8dLt66 DI2VDAIBdvo9QxU6/WtQPVFOvDQGgT1AP9WK29/nKenxHrFv+MlQgTzU58zqyIgSINpRNCc bIZrm2EDJbmjAyOmxjK0nX4rtrQXWSyX6vF3IqN89jO+u6caaK9/UGnwtH1ZHjstJGHperl 8iYqtCpuMYdOmZtC/xXgg== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:7xpnDpn8FwM=:ZOmbmw8tM8jYzmNE/S61yh +iS71rqUgwmwzfjdN/Nr+YEFZH7vAHa3bHrlGRW8zVb84H81dbC5tXzmksanbTk2d/psH03Gt q98/Bv/Upl3FjIXMzntpR/VfxAdmhEBeI/4tqvMTZnlLPIV1FSZ7IVxymgc6LbbCmF0duXnHp voa1DcW4Y31IRDEX31nTH8GerFW6IaL8CKZe+BR2lVFSuVOonJE1hSY3AckTnwVciubwe/54c O3NLpBfFgZssxPOddO28VO2vmmJp1uTBlD6fNvRqxB/lSHr26z3ggQj+RcU2MaVpMHKAcfrEp KOerS8NeEeU9OTkYI/Is6XgblMBzDu0/Z4z6NdcaugVGnWbwcSJvVru7cAx+U0IF7NPlT+7/h t6FVXE90Wnp92IjU1Ne/YFbjDNZpY0KAm5KpqWM1+ElJXS8MlCWzJk/bPmQRBe6I8xW1KsWTd 8vCLdYC2PzUwUweLQEi7/kuRZVUObkddr6Us1DZ8ZZQc9BgiVsUXTs5xWGmS0rs1pTqqonSYd oXkdAw+VauZO80iQU+1xkmo9rdT/twTPj6qKK+Ukg94E7mRlywE3oJBuFguQS4LDwQ09X3uvx +nk24nkMiJRIlh11uzcra2VS2wMkbJYLriEkqcJdQnKsOrEVfBnWGoo6e5UkI7AiIHAspsTXA vfHiClKW69i7SgJt/TmMRCvczh4L4LDHeTWzTyK2jdGPZF8RhKH6+7EyBUeklMiktfG9qpQv/ oWGEdGymqokZVkM+P1nPlCv6T3gro2P3oZyHyz9tjs4888mJeTPl3TmPxEEE6Yr3dtcsADrlS 8IUQMNaXULEaga5KPYrbNu8RBrV8hC+vu6eMUqnYe0FdlG35oalKU2+fxAWqvFM3NXCXGZhqA xBHX+aPzpfALda+JXhStLL8F0T2lPCw0xINexfVHPP7eTuHkoponQ6zxSywcbH24jzFcfnypy aLGLOErZ8BSnJnjMzBmIUBRBh5TAGTHMdLivfyP7BsZL4q0Wnub/7RgyoNl3wEE8kB0isNNcZ yVhomTS9yq0T7Tah7K5Sh/z70/xLLPypKXSch6xUQSoReL9bykL8Y0stKN1Sg2zCHMJOuxp5X LIMzszjjdC0qHM= X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Eli Zaretskii writes: > In what sense is that a contradiction? (+ 1 10) is equivalent to (1+ 10), > so we have N = 2 arguments in the original function and M = 1 = N - 1 in > the new one. No, N is described as the number of arguments the function accepts, not as the number of arguments in someone's example. So N = infinity, and M = N - 1 = infinity. But Emacs' `1+' accepts one argument. 1 /= infinity. Different functions. It is a detail, but given that the preceding paragraph explains the arity, and then we give an example that doesn't preserve arity, it's a detail with the potential of confusion. > > I'm a bit confused that you don't consider this a problem, and also that > > you said there were no concrete suggestions. > Why are you saying the suggestion is not being considered, whereas in > reality it was considered (and rejected)? I responded to "there were no suggestions" without reading everything of the thread. I had the impression that the bug had been closed in a rush. Maybe I was wrong. Stefan's explanation was confusing to me. > I cannot disagree more. That one line doesn't make anything clear, it > just shows the implementation. It does for me. We can't have both? > I object to deleting that. That text certainly helps me, so it cannot > be useless, let alone harmful. Why again was saying something like "note that unlike the built-in function this version accepts any number of arguments" rejected? Michael. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:15:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Michael Heerdegen Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org, stefan@marxist.se Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.16349948424537 (code B ref 17623); Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:15:01 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2021 13:14:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34691 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meGqX-0001B5-Sv for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 09:14:02 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:33786) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meGqU-0001AR-Cf for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 09:14:00 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:60968) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1meGqM-0000zg-HK; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 09:13:50 -0400 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=3938 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1meGqL-0000vj-4I; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 09:13:49 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 16:13:37 +0300 Message-Id: <835ytn6fzy.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: <87ilxnuczs.fsf@web.de> (message from Michael Heerdegen on Sat, 23 Oct 2021 14:44:39 +0200) References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> <83bl3g55t5.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilxnuczs.fsf@web.de> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Michael Heerdegen > Cc: stefan@marxist.se, 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 14:44:39 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > In what sense is that a contradiction? (+ 1 10) is equivalent to (1+ 10), > > so we have N = 2 arguments in the original function and M = 1 = N - 1 in > > the new one. > > No, N is described as the number of arguments the function accepts, not > as the number of arguments in someone's example. So > > N = infinity, and M = N - 1 = infinity. > > But Emacs' `1+' accepts one argument. Why does it matter? The example shows a function created by apply-partially, it doesn't say the result is exactly bug-for-bug compatible with the existing primitive. Suppose we would enhance the built-in 1+ to accept any number of arguments: would you then retract your objections? why? > 1 /= infinity. Different functions. Actually, I think the issue here is that infinity - 1 = infinity. Anyway, you are saying that, because the description in the manual doesn't pedantically cover the case of functions that can accept any number of arguments, it is incorrect? Really?? This manual is not an academic paper, where everything must be pedantically rigorous. It is a manual that teaches a language. When you teach, you sometimes use simplifications to explain a complex subject, and simplifications are always less than 100% accurate. But that doesn't make simplifications useless or invalid. Like the well-known analogy that explains gravitation-induced curvature of the space-time by describing a heavy marble ball placed on a rubber sheet (which is preposterously incorrect, if one takes the analogy apart), simplifications help people to form a mental model of what really happens that is instrumental and thus useful, even if it isn't rigorously correct. So simplifications are a useful didactic instrument, and we shouldn't be afraid of using them when they do the job. I'm sorry for this lecture, but it is my impression that you sometimes forget about this when you talk about our documentation -- this is not the first time we argue about similar stuff for similar reasons. If it will help remove your objections, we could note in parentheses that functions which accept any number of arguments will still accept any number of arguments after apply-partially. Would that be good enough for you? If not, why not? > It is a detail, but given that the preceding paragraph explains the > arity, and then we give an example that doesn't preserve arity, it's a > detail with the potential of confusion. That paragraph doesn't explain the arity. It doesn't mention that word even once. It explains apply-partially, not arity. > > I cannot disagree more. That one line doesn't make anything clear, it > > just shows the implementation. > > It does for me. We can't have both? No, because showing the implementation muddies the waters and will confuse at least some readers. So it's a net loss for a manual that needs to explain and teach. And the implementation can be easily seen anyway, it's just one keypress away. > > I object to deleting that. That text certainly helps me, so it cannot > > be useless, let alone harmful. > > Why again was saying something like "note that unlike the built-in > function this version accepts any number of arguments" rejected? It wasn't, because it wasn't suggested anywhere I could see in the discussion. I've no objections to adding this as a footnote, FWIW. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Stefan Kangas Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:15:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Michael Heerdegen , Eli Zaretskii Cc: 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org id=D17623.16349948624576 (code D ref 17623); Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:15:02 +0000 Received: (at 17623-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2021 13:14:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34694 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meGqs-0001Bj-IT for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 09:14:22 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-f50.google.com ([209.85.216.50]:55960) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meGqp-0001BR-JL for 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 09:14:21 -0400 Received: by mail-pj1-f50.google.com with SMTP id om14so4834087pjb.5 for <17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 06:14:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NyM5EUzSvitIdlKL1+9ikDfQKJ3T8PjPE66214fHM48=; b=FXZHhnMzTfPHAbAh0LU+Rur89WoTul86nK+EuQV+18Akso2CLM45wcPwIb2BpEAZVm Fwyw2nGCGjhemjvqTdVk1nty1GYx4RLlOlRyEJM/tsx5xReVQDy1eixSolNuA1k3m99Q L5ZcaaycBj2qTQwSQZlHli6dddz4vaS5txVEhSSgxXSYtzZtllEFbNA3tI5QvTUjOVBl cbT/xWnm3AyJEZMy4mDs303YVGmGb88F6YiPvY79wahginxLYknTc4pIcNPo8r7pvhpG qthh/rKErgcmmLSQim8Nf+k2OpAxIl7SOKL1hUI2LXgpoKy0Q9MJMpNlEPRSWysMapq9 n3Hg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531DYJ+Ej+EkmeKqt+XqHzBieCK6QgQv8kqs63ARvWRYpF4cTe0m ECZiinR+MO/MUuqrpjda2NmAX2bR2KdOA8aOE4U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzwq6/yz23pBEXkyunYiGaCUnbSm8CtXi1ZxT/SqTpAiuwGlkYz3PJ2yBqjarWzLd3KnacFwMM+sy+jA1eI/SA= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:17d2:: with SMTP id me18mr21638501pjb.132.1634994853720; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 06:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 06:14:13 -0700 From: Stefan Kangas In-Reply-To: <87ilxnuczs.fsf@web.de> References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> <83bl3g55t5.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilxnuczs.fsf@web.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 06:14:13 -0700 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) Michael Heerdegen writes: > Why again was saying something like "note that unlike the built-in > function this version accepts any number of arguments" rejected? Would this resolve any remaining confusion in this paragraph? If so, adding this sounds like a reasonable outcome. It is a true statement, and I don't think it risks confusing things further. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Michael Heerdegen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 15:30:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org, stefan@marxist.se Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.163500296028241 (code B ref 17623); Sat, 23 Oct 2021 15:30:02 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2021 15:29:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36909 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meIxU-0007LQ-5U for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:29:20 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.11]:34949) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meIxR-0007LC-Em for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:29:19 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=dbaedf251592; t=1635002950; bh=153UxxLPz6BnPDNkSYehWxNX5t8MKHizDz+EMj1reyY=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=heRC7h3fmcukLJDGZrVUs3R1eso3Cafw0817oO5Pawy1xab33xPBAh41q6KzSMob1 3Z35FOUxsr+P3kV7utqkxQ/pBwbRzfZ0i29g/UKId9l+xQsqFkAhvzzGIdO9UYFp0d T0aOyVIQ4q59HMwd9ouOAju9xXtkjVc4NFzr2xlI= X-UI-Sender-Class: c548c8c5-30a9-4db5-a2e7-cb6cb037b8f9 Received: from drachen.dragon ([92.208.225.87]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb106 [213.165.67.124]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MjxiM-1n6zwk1jOi-00kdLc; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:29:10 +0200 From: Michael Heerdegen References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> <83bl3g55t5.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilxnuczs.fsf@web.de> <835ytn6fzy.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:29:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: <835ytn6fzy.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 23 Oct 2021 16:13:37 +0300") Message-ID: <87zgqzsqt6.fsf@web.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:JbxgLGqNu4zIgAOr0rcjOVU9kQCLjZ5s7GXR4q+05kdOh4+WMN9 4IQPv7y1+Ln5otKOOYLcykbl0eQb+vbwUU+xQonrKzSLo6y/jZ1JmyrjS1hGmgQRVxFnEhP 9i5H7Bqg3gc1BusHInuaqXBLxQYmZHDfFY1jYbAtFcnL9sM7YfrjIWxV2Q/E9QYYDP7V0h8 Ylob0gdqQ2yfaPgHp9p1Q== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:l0u5h2EwQ+Y=:pPDiHw9R1uUmfPQA90n/Ri nixXV34ssUOPbD/VSIP7xjbd7IRFtXVHX8E75ZQYv3msLFj3cI++cm9WWSzOsJAG940LieQ5c 5Bw0/XOx+q8/ZI7ATfuWM8TPiCIoyU7GUdzoSHWPzRpR7jJl0DDDwuKPkSNYzHDq8G9rw91EI 0C3tecvFGvrvdsUIsO+pVAWibp8Z/IijdiD6pmtq08M/vWyhL7mRbJGyRPSfbT1l9JfBdvX1C 6WanZ1mrj2NU6uuQxsQmbJeoSeOfD8Vco9d6XCyXS7srKK3SOOHwt9jfqbw3lOU9lARP3SJVm PLCcJEY2UKBfn0l2l+crkfFzVwGt6yge10MZXkLK8+CtsFNANDKJVCjRboyAgoMdEEdRHUC5u z5+zalgz6y/o+Dj2MlgszU6qKUGQ/oa/dMyh10pSGJ55H9JPbd+gba29xX4rr0eOQSvVzBo1w W3KQyhCKk34EfjruPcbC2S3s4jYt7n5AY/Fnc+DmzuLXZYOLFPFzZJZL67mis800BR084soLx 8H9400FJa+f5MF0JHizfn+hKKiU2kPKy7Oog8TBOaXVvSfa2IljT+6z1AF05OndfIH9dVPhs3 54O7eehBaYJ/9/qx0ItCTh12hdaUHTNar8NVzEemPHfb6IXIndcic2NL9SejWELPZNGdM+Sxv UcrGRun2A/6Ur60DlUd0k3ZWuspIoP/enVbL+Ax1050RpQhVE5U8HiIajR6Z6/+QLysDqE914 onghDqnmiWTXptzZJ5G65144R9doYjDItycadHk3yCB9txhP24OeO3Jd4V54flMiTtTd9D8Gc SyJtQ4oqu0ZdNAzVExlxc1Z18AEgXGC6cM1goK4DYc57bYZiMXHoxNs2eH5mupu+LYAFiHzwc 2uWbORBvZfMHUz/QKWcA1Np2iISRn0g741PVQsgBQyukcJj6VCfMVPDpIx95vGkUKZCBO6mXT LLgmPLkM8es2YcT6tlLsm/uZTn2A5h6zWgmbYbrhWAx5RezEVmQVP6Zl/UcRLIhtMTZz0mG7b igrIQpzogZHWFbrxEAb3BQUGOwRyL5+9fdd0oLZPu/CnWFPiKzDV7TCvZsjEdvDgxaUyHqZhz 8ytYysx3ybMK6E= X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Eli Zaretskii writes: > > But Emacs' `1+' accepts one argument. > > Why does it matter? Because the text talks about the number of accepted arguments, right in the preceding lines. > The example shows a function created by apply-partially, it doesn't > say the result is exactly bug-for-bug compatible with the existing > primitive. Suppose we would enhance the built-in 1+ to accept any > number of arguments: would you then retract your objections? why? Yes, because then it would be a correct replacement. > > 1 /= infinity. Different functions. > > Actually, I think the issue here is that infinity - 1 = infinity. In this context this is correct. What issue? > Anyway, you are saying that, because the description in the manual > doesn't pedantically cover the case of functions that can accept any > number of arguments, it is incorrect? Really?? Can't you image that some people might have a look at the number of accepted arguments of the example -- directly after we talked about the number of accepted arguments of the result of an `apply-partially' call -- to check if they understood the paragraph correctly? Is this really that far fetched? > I'm sorry for this lecture, but it is my impression that you sometimes > forget about this when you talk about our documentation -- this is not > the first time we argue about similar stuff for similar reasons. You don't seem to want to consider that what is a simplification for one makes the thing harder to understand for others. We should aim for a documentation that is good for learning for everyone, not only for people who think and learn like you. Really, I'm a bit irritated about your reactions. Is my way of learning and reading wrong in your eyes? If I say I find that text or detail confusing - is it just that this can't be true, and that's it? Or my mistake? Or does it not matter? > That paragraph doesn't explain the arity. It doesn't mention that > word even once. It explains apply-partially, not arity. That "N". It is called the arity of that function. Also M-N. > It wasn't, because it wasn't suggested anywhere I could see in the > discussion. I've no objections to adding this as a footnote, FWIW. Then please do that. Michael. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Michael Heerdegen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 15:39:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Stefan Kangas Cc: 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii Received: via spool by 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org id=D17623.163500351129192 (code D ref 17623); Sat, 23 Oct 2021 15:39:02 +0000 Received: (at 17623-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2021 15:38:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36929 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meJ6N-0007am-96 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:38:31 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.3]:51589) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meJ6L-0007aT-09 for 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:38:30 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=dbaedf251592; t=1635003502; bh=96DM40g4k2vJaVkjb5iXBAyj43vgCfcrmLPOgH6HycI=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=fs02rZ7DeSEWSJdTolOgwAtoc6a5CZopRFkKM72iS7rcJb8S2fnIDturwoySIa620 oR5O/fq5Fc0V/AAdoYvvH6LbdYY4NUXEmWXwuRCouA76wPzBKnjhMYUu67NFvy4dL+ TIvERDrDFWIMIjqqgvDazR3lBMKDwtMyMUtcAqUA= X-UI-Sender-Class: c548c8c5-30a9-4db5-a2e7-cb6cb037b8f9 Received: from drachen.dragon ([92.208.225.87]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb001 [213.165.67.108]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lo0Hw-1nBS3q2KHw-00fzVW; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:38:22 +0200 From: Michael Heerdegen References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> <83bl3g55t5.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilxnuczs.fsf@web.de> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:38:21 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Kangas's message of "Sat, 23 Oct 2021 06:14:13 -0700") Message-ID: <87v91nsqdu.fsf@web.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:tB5QeWRNndm/FvVT7pmZMtLeuhXnh/jqhM7XjL0pgh1ulXrtBcm 3oJua5/MEma87fr4aU2w6YoXAfLuJdKpWrXpOvNSvrGslQoG0rldumPgrVE9eFBF78GOty4 20x/rV60y72euGLv75hOwiBEoL9jX0qCdX0XL/hqyjyeECIv1lkcsMvkMcMo/BS0ewzxP1A 0/4HSbkhLiNVYX6HHa3wQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:P/dFFm0fIhc=:bYPz61L0mhzcGWbQLQTSSV BjK5FMI3rnQ/3utjZFHaOqtIPwD0XKPKVyxWTj3vsUHahczVjkQwFUcKryGC/b35sWFk256l9 GkPKasJIgw1kxYKSRsjRBXU770Ir8tT7VjNjN/OwQRYJzgYNguN8p5bGAFWRSVTbpnkihzEE2 dudKCD0NWRABYb6OZFFN3R+XDUnvgeFoB4Bs8rUagxwBS7L0LlgYRt3XY9VZap96gzWQP6YEu AuVKb++LPjNA2uD2syxedKIHcuKUD1odhj0Rg5UFkLJ1QLFxwsD8yygGNcF2w0nS7lgCgOYmt FulLEMI5Q81KYq+sOGPVv7+ZGp7uk+6rh3H8zNEfUqWOi4+AZwWQX22qrjkkPrdfZm9p0Ltjt iW1P1X4nnz2WykJmEQGxSKXirXyfBBLhgaEml+6SQgIkUnB1vqKWPFr+TxTZ9BcrlV/ItU88m EDJ5NWJSHnp825hm5I58nxBmt8O0QjElePfhnlufP+frGMpJiwVPRmzVmuuhgQ468BKXhTyxj uK+xy3YDPJ3ysZvAbxrC5iVflPK2QGmb1kGLZnjSnnPc3vxvho+EjNWvEJ9txqHybvkZRr6hV uzlin7mwtx7mB11mwtYwXNulHlH7nr0X09iIGnbCtSO/OvxRzgi69bhODUsJvxkmCT3MAY6IX JTAkk/yAIts9f7SbZ2C45wa/dHl17yRBDg/iWmXy44qUl44ytWkigTy0DuX+ywWx6/dIpNmb6 iP1Enka2bXgtlAPsxi2VPnlyn21CwphyzhjSHc2x9CIrSnZLjoFhJhHIoLa18d/PPPXitmtZC 1ZNGv0vMqWCyKf46sR1SLnwaPawj4IJgo4yCzM5fwfd4nas9tUMHAsBYg/sJl4xELF5XqYiEw tNAQMYCWsD7vVsYshlQNQp6TOUO8bAh7gFTlrNWD4V1+BKoLIOBH6CDqddwd8VlxPHRqsGQ0M wAsPomA0AIYBeBb3e1ldJGnvFXIMU10GwAMv2yoD70loVw3KzmXGYYlSRjFMv+3ybjoPfffB+ 6J/gPNa+EaAaCInxMExvNEFogzrHYNhoyvPaZJOu0tvA7povMGfuXseq1GHz9tJBQWHFwcIrr wdoM3QHL8+n3Uc= X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Stefan Kangas writes: > Michael Heerdegen writes: > > > Why again was saying something like "note that unlike the built-in > > function this version accepts any number of arguments" rejected? > > Would this resolve any remaining confusion in this paragraph? Yes. I would also replace "M [a new frame without a minibuffer] #+end_src Michael. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Stefan Kangas Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:02:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Michael Heerdegen , Eli Zaretskii Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.16350085035877 (code B ref 17623); Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:02:01 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2021 17:01:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37057 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meKOt-0001Wj-Dy for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:01:43 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-f54.google.com ([209.85.216.54]:56016) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meKOr-0001WV-AH for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:01:43 -0400 Received: by mail-pj1-f54.google.com with SMTP id om14so5085459pjb.5 for <17623@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:01:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PXbKK6H/2WrmEJzEJ7y7jmZ7k9LusELLgk7OfQFN2QI=; b=ll2BB/xzV73QUVsgQeCjoExVBHIyvLjW6TCgZxiZAcxU24Z4j4wxIAwPDtKozz5DiB XsYnuLek92PBbAyAeyL1HmiIpXZ/oLJh/7jVBrdKnMYnznYAfgVwUA0y621Fo4DTPPRX ncJoM5YbDZ96Lt8a4Zi0VKpibChJnQnVJNud5YR3cXpTvSzkDSjQyEvretyEj2j5TSqm BH0EU6IEVn80ViKVmWXkHLbFud+pNc9w5Mo6NcV5EAO2gHvSVwBjVFdoF/hK56os4Fbs b2loHMSjtQmwyKMSCBO2EeRYns0U/RWNkiWIqXEIvIRnB8W4c8DVT32dOr1V+19mkitK yLNw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532X5a5NaP+6zDyDfiRNxnrQzTmhr5QdgiHmMzCXMu+93D6dIq0/ f+HALlwPPR4/wPufXZQ0jYnvM6gnWIYUwuGZmRk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJziJq8qSwtCIO6gnTOYJKwfykmgz+9t2ZW1qtjQVgnV+xmp/rf0LBOu+uNgaGDztx7VdwaNJmzx/ObUDgIXxS4= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:17d2:: with SMTP id me18mr22791127pjb.132.1635008495539; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:01:34 -0700 From: Stefan Kangas In-Reply-To: <87zgqzsqt6.fsf@web.de> References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> <83bl3g55t5.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilxnuczs.fsf@web.de> <835ytn6fzy.fsf@gnu.org> <87zgqzsqt6.fsf@web.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:01:34 -0700 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) Michael Heerdegen writes: >> It wasn't, because it wasn't suggested anywhere I could see in the >> discussion. I've no objections to adding this as a footnote, FWIW. > > Then please do that. Now done on emacs-28 (commit ef37a86cac). I also fixed the documentation bug you spotted where we used < instead of <=. Thanks. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:56:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Michael Heerdegen Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org, stefan@marxist.se Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.163501175519711 (code B ref 17623); Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:56:01 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2021 17:55:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37137 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meLFL-00057r-GI for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:55:55 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55780) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meLFI-00057c-L2 for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:55:54 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:39482) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1meLFB-0000Jq-9n; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:55:47 -0400 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=1718 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1meLEZ-000529-Vw; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:55:27 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 20:54:55 +0300 Message-Id: <831r4b62z4.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: <87zgqzsqt6.fsf@web.de> (message from Michael Heerdegen on Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:29:09 +0200) References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> <83bl3g55t5.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilxnuczs.fsf@web.de> <835ytn6fzy.fsf@gnu.org> <87zgqzsqt6.fsf@web.de> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Michael Heerdegen > Cc: stefan@marxist.se, 17623@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:29:09 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > > But Emacs' `1+' accepts one argument. > > > > Why does it matter? > > Because the text talks about the number of accepted arguments, right in > the preceding lines. The text talks about the variant of 1+ shown in the text, not about the built-in 1+. > > Anyway, you are saying that, because the description in the manual > > doesn't pedantically cover the case of functions that can accept any > > number of arguments, it is incorrect? Really?? > > Can't you image that some people might have a look at the number of > accepted arguments of the example -- directly after we talked about the > number of accepted arguments of the result of an `apply-partially' call > -- to check if they understood the paragraph correctly? Is this really > that far fetched? No, it isn't far-fetched. But what problem will those people find? that infinity - 1 = infinity? isn't that obvious? > > I'm sorry for this lecture, but it is my impression that you sometimes > > forget about this when you talk about our documentation -- this is not > > the first time we argue about similar stuff for similar reasons. > > You don't seem to want to consider that what is a simplification for one > makes the thing harder to understand for others. Such simplifications make it harder to understand only for those who already know what the function does. They might feel uneasy about the simplification because they could think it simplifies too much. Like I feel whenever I read that analogy about space-time curvature. But this text is not written for people who already know, it is written for those who don't. > We should aim for a documentation that is good for learning for > everyone, not only for people who think and learn like you. Feel free to suggest text which will do that. The only way I know of for doing that is to follow a simplified description with a small print saying something like "This is not entirely accurate; the truth is that ..." etc. (That is not what you proposed, and my response was to what you actually proposed.) If you think that would be useful, we could add such a text, if someone submits it. > Really, I'm a bit irritated about your reactions. Yes, I've noticed. It doesn't help. > Is my way of learning and reading wrong in your eyes? If I say I > find that text or detail confusing - is it just that this can't be > true, and that's it? Or my mistake? Or does it not matter? I hope I answered these questions above. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:58:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Michael Heerdegen Cc: 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org, stefan@marxist.se Received: via spool by 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org id=D17623.163501186219898 (code D ref 17623); Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:58:02 +0000 Received: (at 17623-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2021 17:57:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37144 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meLH4-0005As-C8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:57:42 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56044) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meLH2-0005Af-N0 for 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:57:41 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:39504) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1meLGx-0002Hr-6B; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:57:35 -0400 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=1867 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1meLGw-0007mh-7u; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:57:35 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 20:57:23 +0300 Message-Id: <83zgqz4oak.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: <87v91nsqdu.fsf@web.de> (message from Michael Heerdegen on Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:38:21 +0200) References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> <83bl3g55t5.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilxnuczs.fsf@web.de> <87v91nsqdu.fsf@web.de> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Michael Heerdegen > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:38:21 +0200 > > I would also replace "M e.g. I don't object, but please note that the text didn't say M=N is not a possibility. It says _IF_ M Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 09:27:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Stefan Kangas Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.163524038818873 (code B ref 17623); Tue, 26 Oct 2021 09:27:02 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Oct 2021 09:26:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45142 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mfIiy-0004uL-3m for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 05:26:28 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.3]:43755) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mfIip-0004u1-8h for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 05:26:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=dbaedf251592; t=1635240373; bh=nrSpuKQn2jUrCxDycWYKbtRkIHWX6P+6UqmQtYGE3aI=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=JHCydKe8d42sexKjiFW3U8M1oSSnO9B+mpibLZ8LarRKZ+3Gk3hAsE3ZaYrA6oPDz 66eKUjMq0nyV2jyC1YS21I0whGEq16iIiwDzGXqP5rY6AeYR7KEHQ9vbu6a8UrvYrx Iragog38xzS0Z5oONiXAXTgxJUm16hwhIkHjz7lo= X-UI-Sender-Class: c548c8c5-30a9-4db5-a2e7-cb6cb037b8f9 Received: from drachen.dragon ([92.208.225.87]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb003 [213.165.67.108]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MCIoz-1mWGA93XmL-0096lL; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 11:26:12 +0200 From: Michael Heerdegen References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> <83bl3g55t5.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilxnuczs.fsf@web.de> <835ytn6fzy.fsf@gnu.org> <87zgqzsqt6.fsf@web.de> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 11:26:11 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Kangas's message of "Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:01:34 -0700") Message-ID: <87wnm0i1cc.fsf@web.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:22XbL8no+8HAu8AB+rXQB82139nfaqkGUfHjFoVZ/Lxv8YbYv9k ZA5rk3j2Nra9tkpdl9Z5juN6WgcYqcVGrbGBgrW+jdI5IqzOLH6FV0yRp6ljkSy+VI9jhia 5Zz3KASjHKEsCt0AOaTIdiEUftHUUXH3P+AKyz6rJuGP+B8Z0cuqrqYTltTrTsHPupgS4VZ avhW81sDpQwky6SWgxt/A== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:aLlvB4qKUJw=:LHQSR0vzPE1+ywe7wIyLth 23jlRXKPg2RuZ6PPvJ0Cnmqub3CCYWZ8fmvhcYXbPFfCUcNDjREk6Z/Ixyse9jtYSoOtt0icY OUxHgDsY/0OGzFSI7aze39lqNduYORbsmp4BolKBq8K5lg5SkxXRS5Inld1iMVZi7C/ds0665 dwSePGti+g9FGrFsnL5JgNbZfMBThgG4+HuD+SjIoyb2YuxAYyLkZPmqznV1sLalqtiMMpawK JLA5QXaDbSjESxZ1Wy2Bw94Z7a3ucMUjbXgDUBUncQ1XLmkiSwBlwcwhjAsolcYnj/mXxG2sq Sd4DMqfgLQ+Bh7AuwguRSyePLmeje2TlxpvWB+JnXhesGndd7B4EIQlzWIhEeECNIzif8lWLF iKMHJbcTGk1dMOGY/EC2xcNnMblOJPgMVFP2p03hdzB0Hbha30iycN9ouWiGsnift+4B59Qlm dB/V7L1vLKM/B6mU0b+sVW0lzHUxEDwCDGhWw4+gixFXwlY8ce9YvomonzmlQ/m5yGv79pBRd gwV5bd5PMCzupsxFIwG0jAcKwGT32NcsHNBcoibLe3qSa5+zdo9wMSBP+QOnTYG5nvT3UjhcY E+vt8SHWi/zODum15JLtfQ8YOJqvxT0+FneTXvOpjzYGCR+Jlb681KBkyZfD6EcNxemUbI4i+ pM/zOa3beVjtOtT/0UhFdFkK3CuGEfoSa0wx/6dLRxS3+8JdlTnz24u5aA39V0mcRFCPF4jna Gtzw/qroZHAOkfNecqeeMTvRzZaVH18CqtAnaqPk/rp5JqSKcSNg/Uno7apjBmp5x6UkXzmS9 5R9Qm8JJR7/lqHwWKQhLKm5PBxEErLXeJuKEuOYB7ZbduUCkKlUYOB6bkX/m/Gvpxk9V9WZmc +cta2cssgQnJChkS2CtqZT/AGBgMRHfU7wfyJwwNMb3DyjTcZ7mpx5/jJgfr+uF7sP3FKmY9E d/icCAefn9QSoppnfk8be5i8EMTmScWSMAKrp+6CqQ5Ix3Aj/F77fFDqwpfelYpixVW9Dk7kr uQdWHeYtVhDR65rMzjIYXa1iJe+OevC8Zuv1ENMyIW4bQoFylj9f0xLs726V03L6WdAMpxtey U2Acgy1tmHNd1w= X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Stefan Kangas writes: > Now done on emacs-28 (commit ef37a86cac). I also fixed the > documentation bug you spotted where we used < instead of <=. Thanks. When reading again, I wondered if we should convert that whole manual page to use function quoting. E.g. (apply-partially '+ 1) ~> (apply-partially #'+ 1) The same problem exists for a few other pages. Should I make a separate report about this? TIA, Michael. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Stefan Kangas Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 20:25:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Michael Heerdegen Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Monnier Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.163527990020115 (code B ref 17623); Tue, 26 Oct 2021 20:25:02 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Oct 2021 20:25:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47642 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mfT0G-0005EM-35 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 16:25:00 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f181.google.com ([209.85.210.181]:35402) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mfT0E-0005E9-0B for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 16:24:58 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f181.google.com with SMTP id l203so574047pfd.2 for <17623@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 13:24:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SNW2ZRjkziiqs6Y2mWz/C6FiMVWrBCnU5mrT7/Glrds=; b=TitRXAz+sMtmBHgOmjDxxgTbZhGj9ZhrZfbCBYHlatxEu0U9l5+UXzlEiS9rHyjnlq foRQ+0WIamOFq2GVMJ80NXLtIULY8IGkaVdeo0+9a4tlErJLdwecY0Vuwm21bc/VWH79 IbXEuA/JCVxS4K54/zLPMdgj5EgjVfnzdcuLEPKTRKh0AG+opL2I0a/39pHrKZNtof19 QCDQCXFJKwdS+7Sw7+8nBMk2bxrNJNaEKxbHXhoOwNxN8XbUrqCJO77XurPxIlPI9hfR PonYNmAv4ObZpCJyilzL5P2bDLuTIZmtrcuKeuM/7u52Cfqx70XHhCInLDVRinCQL7ZY ad8A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532IKJPCtIFMbhRg0H4BmKUiQ+7D2e/zdiyRPypYXKXV/TxCLbEB g/lxdPGWFJPJJiIc6z6hhlp+7VnmsIlBn64Bq9RufU+lPSY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxoNaEaTglDD5mNTD/x8yUS4nOWSQpcgbi+seTVen/1R2SClYQg8ld40B4jQCAQ3AaSdYkv4PF/1Eujy7ZLPQo= X-Received: by 2002:a63:b958:: with SMTP id v24mr12791990pgo.114.1635279881068; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 13:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 22:24:38 +0200 From: Stefan Kangas In-Reply-To: <87wnm0i1cc.fsf@web.de> References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> <83bl3g55t5.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilxnuczs.fsf@web.de> <835ytn6fzy.fsf@gnu.org> <87zgqzsqt6.fsf@web.de> <87wnm0i1cc.fsf@web.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 22:24:38 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Michael Heerdegen writes: > When reading again, I wondered if we should convert that whole manual > page to use function quoting. E.g. > > (apply-partially '+ 1) ~> (apply-partially #'+ 1) > > The same problem exists for a few [...] Content analysis details: (1.7 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net [Blocked - see ] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (stefankangas[at]gmail.com) 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.2 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [209.85.210.181 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [209.85.210.181 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders 0.2 FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) Michael Heerdegen writes: > When reading again, I wondered if we should convert that whole manual > page to use function quoting. E.g. > > (apply-partially '+ 1) ~> (apply-partially #'+ 1) > > The same problem exists for a few other pages. Should I make a separate > report about this? I don't have a strong opinion either way. I think what could be better documented are the benefits of quoting with function (or #'). AFAICT, it is not really explained on (info "(elisp) Anonymous Functions"), it is more hinted at. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Michael Heerdegen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 09:19:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Stefan Kangas Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.163532632215632 (code B ref 17623); Wed, 27 Oct 2021 09:19:02 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Oct 2021 09:18:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48426 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mff4z-000444-Nx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 05:18:41 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.3]:44139) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mff4y-00043s-6d for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 05:18:40 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=dbaedf251592; t=1635326310; bh=I0OdVvI/OgupdFPxMRUGODmeeeVBRNgM4F4GVj/E+Oo=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=bU7wHX1uZhYq10hL8byV2ZrzLzCz5CAW0AsmsR5OJrycC/7DGLFbeasz6+dC3ukR3 HR2zeHBhlGx/P5exjq3nAXTnlQ40CaJfIqP3zb73XlOH0iHRgvPWiax+rZManw3mmn qH6YTckrtRNgbG5GZJFw3pI/aexzPYDqSNtmruPI= X-UI-Sender-Class: c548c8c5-30a9-4db5-a2e7-cb6cb037b8f9 Received: from drachen.dragon ([92.208.225.87]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb003 [213.165.67.108]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Mgwee-1mJiLe1ZWC-00M35h; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 11:18:30 +0200 From: Michael Heerdegen References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> <83bl3g55t5.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilxnuczs.fsf@web.de> <835ytn6fzy.fsf@gnu.org> <87zgqzsqt6.fsf@web.de> <87wnm0i1cc.fsf@web.de> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 11:18:29 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Kangas's message of "Tue, 26 Oct 2021 22:24:38 +0200") Message-ID: <87k0hy6d22.fsf@web.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:cn7i+IidB7upjjsOiGPfXBaPnnS2rE8HTeKtyBmoKGcUgo+uGXC gey30Kj05DKcgnMHFHX9uyDZlk1np5LVil3hhl8TeOzYDN2xMActJN3ptNrSgNzI2WF25kT /DiRC+Akhtn5FbWgD3TkpHssa7MyTqggBNs6ghTbw45/PQ4RU0RaMF5/q0vqAaNmVOl2z8z FqUfZxpKcXVHDzLr9rZZw== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:t5qWwqVrG0Y=:T1KoN+onM5kOBod7Xnr609 c0PDA1cxkLsT2RLTWyE7ZxxFyvK6GOqnbYTy91mzYQLTak7xuex3hXGHIjgeOgsO/j8gXCAfe l5AL3HM2noAds0uinUITsYq/XrGyc4H2Sv282Q8PNnuhMk7Sm2H+40vbmfceoa9OIi3JGJ5aa ipfNjkkiP9OQdNqgfxjTefeuPF2r/WHO1RMBG1NhrgrxvslTEAEzL3937nm7MfbDxTKDPe0Vl 1EYSFbaXS8u7PCe9rr3+rmpGuggDGFWIw+xryFWbISzJWkHd5MSs0KXoaM8A/eggze+a2EHSB yOEJyLoFxnzJdOQI1x573xfn1vLReRSdw2yjd30kf/UgyhWw65JkRFOmE4+QPYF4/IQi53fe1 6rx/JwzVBb7KBvKrTAmioH//vatoLnrxDd1WL8RnR1PCskiyfM/7bbFqRg4ocf1nHgxVD0+d8 o7MlO0f131665lHWr7mzhYSvcYg8dq0UjIJYb7bYVna4UxK4eEjNbRFGo7iVyhgmIEkwvRYdg HcQCZW67E5tKgct4Xn2+IvHdO7qJhyDL8lDJLdRuEN4In+X1HXQIEf4tgfu7ETHixglbgeU0e B/QBjg3NcHRiwQiKN23fr12ubg4sG6huofjl5qE283uh31rIURkotXcaTOJmZ7YCLJqaczCtb LlHN9iHggsV/1xdyUKC8oRf2VXsy2L2LPRK2JsZaFYB9cR/06Jd1QYEbbXbdz9+euEqfwE5G3 qDAtZAiRNgu0aZ+sLmxSvQfHj8G5pijC/BnUemP7XjbWz2HQBjjUEr1Y33YoB3FG5n66U9med r3qtgWJa04vz5dMAuqi6P6aLtw1uK/WtkoJomZr3wx6ItZTiaNFat3wUymXhpUDul+CR/NbXu QV/EUbJMAqh5luxu/5KmvX1O3CJcL0dqQUR/f0bh2RR1DleWuLqJsh+CbdSfkWCyMuL6t77Hj OHCa9B7L7/STwmnWjjgwwyEsuzVPYnI+rg27x08OhrLEHc2Zly7kka5NwIRLXtwe/u6HWVS71 dUT4LFMuMOIohpIYHbFezX8WXag7u1HRimLACC4iSiPjlQQhGBUxkqRPQTdDCoy2rV+FhCBMW wJKN8oO/nTI5+0= X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Stefan Kangas writes: > I think what could be better documented are the benefits of quoting > with function (or #'). AFAICT, it is not really explained on > (info "(elisp) Anonymous Functions"), it is more hinted at. Yes, it could say that one should always use this for quoting functions. That page also doesn't tell that lambda the macro is self-funquoting - without this information the part about lambda expressions is a bit confusing. Michael. From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Richard Stallman Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 04:03:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Stefan Kangas Cc: michael_heerdegen@web.de, 17623@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca Reply-To: rms@gnu.org Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.163548016925222 (code B ref 17623); Fri, 29 Oct 2021 04:03:02 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Oct 2021 04:02:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53699 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mgJ6P-0006Yj-Kf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:02:49 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:48676) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mgJ6N-0006YW-2h for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:02:48 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:50818) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mgJ6G-0004D4-GT; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:02:40 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=Date:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: mime-version; bh=WcU5+n52YtthQHzqT65MXMkK3OSDVigscIjI3mxMVBw=; b=IvJytXlFOieQ WM6sJEhbORELopzJuCSUO7oINsvHUW/hiL1q3Ep7qA9N/PUhkMFXkO0tnykQdDg2YvCSaSohwdbgt pv+EXSDEHn+UWqE3qYtJlkg/vLpNo0+OH5dVzM2FaunbP8/pvWaGLSN1mtzQTrqQazjqfp4D4nKqX bz+8/YHI3uX9y741ymbb/0pOBQtRI2C9H1g2aCfFYUh3H84G5sxzlGFkIdOnBTe1fEfQ70FstkkWk oEPUdK0zNMDTvJ98wn94ubpmMuvRftu7uyHYkm/tPPVZQ7y4X+y/4pCfhCnBJjlVV/JYdIM5j/0yL 0QfAV83YykUyb/2Xhdd0pQ==; Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mgJ6D-0002ka-QH; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:02:38 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 From: Richard Stallman In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Kangas on Tue, 26 Oct 2021 22:24:38 +0200) References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> <83bl3g55t5.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilxnuczs.fsf@web.de> <835ytn6fzy.fsf@gnu.org> <87zgqzsqt6.fsf@web.de> <87wnm0i1cc.fsf@web.de> Message-Id: Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:02:37 -0400 X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > I think what could be better documented are the benefits of quoting with > function (or #'). AFAICT, it is not really explained on (info "(elisp) > Anonymous Functions"), it is more hinted at. I don't know of any benefit to using #', or any reason to use it. If there is one, I'd like to know about it. In the absence of a reason, I think we may as well keep Lisp simple by quoting function names with singlequote. -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org) From unknown Thu Aug 14 22:14:15 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Resent-From: Michael Heerdegen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:01:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Richard Stallman Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Kangas , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.163550162428830 (code B ref 17623); Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:01:02 +0000 Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Oct 2021 10:00:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54018 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mgOgR-0007Uw-Q8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 06:00:23 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.11]:54095) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mgOgN-0007UZ-7r for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 06:00:22 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=dbaedf251592; t=1635501608; bh=dstXalPF+p/sXoSCyMvdVh5zDaFp5ZOrpzNnjyp6fP0=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=aLDoMO2B0oSzoZoodtZxNu4p9J2nTr/dzFgItnuQaYNK0Lh/rBn927qI/FcoVBYXA HritqbaZ/yBcRCR5amKMKrUryB17X8W4AtmsGDX2rWJXIlkFLvYhN+F2ZDMwLjGruM IZc6j5wYbq6HgIynLsZepJeDSyUnFjPQpeijOfv0= X-UI-Sender-Class: c548c8c5-30a9-4db5-a2e7-cb6cb037b8f9 Received: from drachen.dragon ([92.208.225.87]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb101 [213.165.67.124]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lj2QM-1nDoHu2J9a-00dELS; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:00:08 +0200 From: Michael Heerdegen References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> <83bl3g55t5.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilxnuczs.fsf@web.de> <835ytn6fzy.fsf@gnu.org> <87zgqzsqt6.fsf@web.de> <87wnm0i1cc.fsf@web.de> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:00:06 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:02:37 -0400") Message-ID: <87lf2cup5l.fsf@web.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:abGuQHRNkdVDJaynXmLyoccIGLTJ4aVkF5VmISddVspD4LoejJq RXOBFZShJRlpvG1ssda+wUOIt27nAMDEhVC4NPRKrjzS/b9wHLqL//H0zHgkaNeYXOin/yy X/xZvzlBBlQysEUYs2KqmPD0BTm9g7iuSP9cnd5pOSifsl7iB6mGR+UwRYb1J1xmVEy0n+K TfKvAL/1TwT9oUdrD8tVA== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:AO2imEeoqtI=:l9mlh5M4J47UrBrSrMVfw8 NXadNQ+gSRlbxadFOWIC/5nDp5HUbU23n6DXJm38ybDqCcaFcTA3eycttp0pI92YL2Tp5iSVF O0/diAxQedCibzZfWq4jtDznat8MTrDNgzl9p9aTGWAkei+MOAPA9mZjlFfi6YwPSHHzSCraV hsJ/kZZvBaKqbbcMq6yMBW8TZf9kgVSGn4nf31Kyeew7yg8xSsmmfBrT5zr7o6SlHDo7fGxXF SGveZBlfh82w+C5JsmW0eiNejNiTppEs/JWvzf4yl4wOQSjLlKMd//nV5MaaorNP9Ib3g5J6n hGp5rYk7k3JpAT/i03SwIWoCK9kUSDRJacclAvzdURPMenXhAg8Jp6YPJSoVFCFPDTXFjj6bm eb+IdJb1sFA0bjOgS6RHnQC3pEifh1TC7TbmEEEJibIBCoDne2dVkpao+wuY+KHwi8nq6ZHnT D8ntB4peZtp1da5mZPqzCbc0t2CqvmCw+AAky4Ln2ubck+o3micWnmU5JzS4fhZfPsbhsR2eG GahJj1m2hmwXQSxe8/JIxkckXuFZQ87jtX0KmiWqOLuYGNjbfijsWegGOgEJGh8GYeXMogO06 P1KmFKrnwFR7T+z7rBORLI8PRxx2mV3aJDvjYguuPo/nlwYjg4AaN1nvWf7A/ONEJ32pl4Sul Fut/zBcvphelE08sIrpqKUAEj86SYuv7J8+ZgsplJVm2nH9/0w433kqYDy3yIJbz8EIeygpct Ba+hUmBFem5sbBtZN4U8zZ3Jk63WoO8GGiefuRCMH0Z3s3tfPgpX5LSNWuQxipOOpfrr8V6zh t+rO33pzPWcfxkMiJj65fVNUmMbZ3gM/LJq/Ha0WbY2nnSbsVLlk97nlEUFeXJdEKE2CGKt2m /2SoZ1rkO42GrHC+uSoDPNE0qe9+7hPrJnZ1yGmkGgJZzX1twl6KrGyVCR6mDMS+cimNdgjYr BovNdCdHC5qD1wgeOGftVrUg3fTNR8KE+/qJDEKWr+SCztUW+tjpsV/UMexE41s/APe5iGKqR X3xrvfirEBgNH46TpVPqsthS8847bVQCZduHSYixeFspCyUo1GN/GuZzSXdb1a5Q9o4yQmbEN z1r+YPx+Lp19GU= X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Richard Stallman writes: > I don't know of any benefit to using #', or any reason to use it. > If there is one, I'd like to know about it. For named functions, the byte-compiler will warn if that function is not defined or might not be known at run time. Very helpful to detect typos or dependency problems. But that only works if you use this style consequently. Michael.