GNU bug report logs -
#25017
Fwd: Re: dotimes var comiler warning
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Your message dated Mon, 28 Nov 2016 17:31:49 +0100
with message-id <87k2bn1s7e.fsf <at> web.de>
and subject line Re: bug#25017: Fwd: Re: dotimes var comiler warning
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #25017,
regarding Fwd: Re: dotimes var comiler warning
to be marked as done.
(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)
--
25017: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=25017
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems
[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]
See text below, thanks!
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: dotimes var comiler warning
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:32:44 +0100
From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de>
CC: Help Gnu Emacs mailing list <help-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de> writes:
> when employing a form
>
> (dotimes (i erg)
>
> ...do-something
>
>
> Compiler sends a warning "Unused lexical variable ‘i’ - whilst seems
> no way to leave out such a var.
>
> Worth a bug-report?
If none exists yet, I'm for it. FWIW, there is a FIXME comment in the
source code already.
Yes, you can probably use `_' to suppress the warning, but I always
wondered why something called like this requires a variable to be
specified (mandatorily) at all.
Michael.
[Message part 4 (text/html, inline)]
[Message part 5 (message/rfc822, inline)]
Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com> writes:
> For purposes of this thread: As in Emacs Lisp, both VAR
> and COUNT are required arguments. In general, I'd prefer
> that Emacs Lisp not diverge from but converge toward
> Common Lisp.
>
> The (implicit) decision to diverge further from Common Lisp has been
> made a while ago, by prefixing the CL functions with `cl' and
> importing the `seq' and `map' libraries, which provide similar
> functionality, but with a different interface.
Maybe (though, I don't think there was such decision, implicit or not -
"seq" and "map" functions also have an according prefix - I wouldn't say
we are converging are diverging to/from Common Lisp at all, but give
developers a stylistic choice). But here were are talking about a
construct that exists in pure Elisp, and OTOH also in Common Lisp,
sharing the same name. If there is not really a need to make the
semantics differ, I prefer to leave things as they are, because
everything else would probably be more confusing than helpful.
Regards,
Michael.
This bug report was last modified 8 years and 170 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.