GNU bug report logs - #25154
25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#25154: closed (25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order)
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 16:32:02 +0000

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

Your message dated Fri, 23 Dec 2016 16:30:47 +0000
with message-id <CAArVCkT81pLsTx-B4ASPFYy+Q8aMOTzrHNeaSOEQOjNdWKq5Rg <at> mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #25154,
regarding 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
25154: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=25154
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Alex <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 17:36:15 -0600

Compare the following:

(let ((x 5)
      (x 6))
  (+ x 10))

=> 16

(cl-letf ((x 5)
          (x 6))
  (+ x 10))

=> 15


This also occurs when using non-trivial places:

(setq v (vector 1 2 3 4 5))

(cl-letf (((aref v 1) 10)
          ((aref v 1) 20))
  (aref v 1))

=> 10


I ran into this when using two different setters that sometimes
indirectly modify the same variable. The current behaviour makes the
result of that unexpected.

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

From: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 25154-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: agrambot <at> gmail.com, tino.calancha <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 16:30:47 +0000

[Message part 4 (text/plain, inline)]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> schrieb am Fr., 23. Dez. 2016 um 14:53 Uhr:

> > From: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com>
> > Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:17:54 +0000
> > Cc: tino.calancha <at> gmail.com, 25154 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, agrambot <at> gmail.com
> >
> >  I agree, patches to that effect are welcome. (AFAICT, the manual
> >  tries to say that already, but the wording could be more explicit.)
> >
> > OK, I've attached a patch that hopefully clarifies this a bit.
>
> Thanks.  My only comment is that I think we prefer talking about
> "binding" instead of "assignment".
>

OK, replaced "assign" with "bind" and pushed to emacs-25 as
c04ac8a3191820d37e7858b7ca4e31cf04808cc3.

[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.