GNU bug report logs - #23486
25.0.93; Modules: features missing from make_function

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net
Cc: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com>, 23486 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#23486: 25.0.93; Modules: features missing from make_function
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2020 15:59:04 +0200

npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net writes:

> Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> This is now done (commit
>> 31fded0370c3aa6d2c4370cae21cdb7475873483). This fixes (1) through
>> (3). (4) through (6) are still open. That's probably OK if the
>> limitations are documented; modules can always do the equivalent of
>> (eval ' (defun ...)) to get complete support.
>
> Lisp_Subr's have an intspec field (4), but I agree it's not really
> essential.  As I think you mentioned in the OP, supporting `declare' (5)
> is not doable by definition (because the effects of 'declare' operate on
> the symbol, not the function object).
>
> Docstrings containing null or non-Unicode characters (6) just seems
> completely pointless to me.  Are there any cases using that capability
> in Emacs (or outside Emacs)?  I would probably consider them as bugs.

This was the final message in this thread.  Philipp's patch fixed the
main problems, and (5) and (6) doesn't sound like something that
can/should be fixed.  Which leaves (4), which didn't seem essential,
either.

So is there more to be done here, or should this bug report be closed?

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

Previous Next

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