GNU bug report logs - #25461
Missing doc strings for "," and ",@".

Previous Next

Full log

Message #53 received at 25461 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
Cc: 25461 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: bug#25461: [Patch]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@".
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 01:24:37 +0100

Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de> writes:

> > I agree backquote is the primary use, it's reasonable to emphasize
> > that.
>
> > Because "," isn't a macro, it doesn't have any semantics. It's
>                                         ^^^^
> > misleading to suggest that it does.
>
> We could degenerate into a long silly discussion about what "have" means.
> , evaluates the form it precedes, and inserts it into the containing
> list.  That's semantics enough for me.

It has a semantics - in the context of backquote.  It's the backquote
macro whose (expanded) code "inserts" something.  "," may have any
arbitrary semantics in another context, and per se, without context, it
has no fixed semantics.

>         "`,' signals that the next form should be evaluated and inserted.
>     It occurs in `\\=`' constructs.

I still find that wording misleading.


Regards,

Michael.

Previous Next

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