GNU bug report logs - #26635
25.1; elisp docs bug

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: "zhangjg" <jinguozhang <at> qq.com>
Subject: bug#26635: closed (Re: 回复：
 bug#26635: 25.1; elisp docs bug)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:51:01 +0000

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

Your bug report

#26635: 25.1; elisp docs bug

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 26635 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

-- 
26635: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=26635
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

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

From: Andreas Schwab <schwab <at> linux-m68k.org>
To: "zhangjg" <jinguozhang <at> qq.com>
Cc: 26635 <26635-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: 回复： bug#26635: 25.1; elisp docs bug
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:50:20 +0200

On Apr 24 2017, "zhangjg" <jinguozhang <at> qq.com> wrote:

> Like the fellow code:
>
>   (= 1 1 t) ; error
>   (= 1 2 t) ; nil
>
> t is a symbol, (= 1 1 t) signal a error, that is what we expect. 
> But in the second form there is no error, because  "=" get the
> result before to eval the third argument "t". 

All arguments are evaluated, by the caller.  Try (= 1 2 (foo)), for
example.

> So "=" not to eval all arguments, that is  a "sepecial form" activation.

It may _ignore_ some of its arguments, but that's not what `special
form' is about.  Any function is free to ignore arguments.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab <at> linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

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

From: "zhangjg" <jinguozhang <at> qq.com>
To: "bug-gnu-emacs" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
Subject: 25.1; elisp docs bug
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:35:55 +0800

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

The elisp docs in the session "12.1 What Is a Function?" distinction the funtion and the function-like object.
But in some pages, some function-like object is give as a function. 
For example:
In session "3.4 Comparison of Numbers", "=" is a set to a "function" but, in fact it a "special forms".

In the same resason, I think, "<", "<=", ">", ">=" also should be "special forms".

[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.