GNU bug report logs - #29165
26.0.90; can't use some code byte-compiled under emacs 24

Previous Next

Full log

Message #31 received at 29165 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Schwab <schwab <at> linux-m68k.org>
To: Ken Raeburn <raeburn <at> permabit.com>
Cc: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com>, 29165 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>,
 Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: bug#29165: 26.0.90;
 can't use some code byte-compiled under emacs 24
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 19:10:30 +0100

On Nov 06 2017, Ken Raeburn <raeburn <at> permabit.com> wrote:

> On Nov 6, 2017, at 09:40, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> We should perhaps put something about throwing error on '&option &rest'
>>>>> into NEWS though.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't understand.  In Common Lisp it is perfectly correct
>>>> to use both &optional and &rest.
>>> 
>>> What's rejected is (&optional &rest other-vars), whereas (&optional
>>> var1 &rest other-vars) is okay. Does CL accept the first form (and if
>>> yes, what does it mean)? I couldn't tell from the page you linked to.
>> 
>> CL accepts a single variable after &rest. And there must be
>> a variable after &optional.  (&optional foo &rest bar) is OK.
>> 
>> (&optional &rest foo) is not OK.
>> (&optional foo &rest bar toto titi) is not OK.
>
> Is this CL in general or a particular CL implementation? The web page you sent the URL for earlier reads like a specification, and from its use of “*” looks to me like it allows the (admittedly useless) form of &optional with no variables.

clisp accepts it.

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."

Previous Next

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