GNU bug report logs - #25017
Fwd: Re: dotimes var comiler warning

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de>
Subject: bug#25017: closed (Re: bug#25017: Fwd: Re: dotimes var comiler
 warning)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 16:33:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your bug report

#25017: Fwd: Re: dotimes var comiler warning

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 25017 <at> debbugs.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)]

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com>
Cc: andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de, 25017-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Subject: Re: bug#25017: Fwd: Re: dotimes var comiler warning
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 17:31:49 +0100

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.

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Fwd: Re: dotimes var comiler warning
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:10:02 +0100

[Message part 4 (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 5 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

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