GNU bug report logs - #40968
28.0.50; (apply nil)

Previous Next

Full log

Message #44 received at 40968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pip Cet <pipcet <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: 40968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#40968: 28.0.50; (apply nil)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 13:55:55 +0000

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 1:02 PM Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> wrote:
> Pip Cet <pipcet <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > (apply FUNCTION ARGUMENT &rest ARGUMENTS), I guess. I missed it in the
> > first patch.
>
> Thanks.
>
> FWIW, I still think we should avoid changing the function signature if
> at all possible.

Is the function signature relevant for anything but eldoc?

> apply is fundamental to Lisp, and has been defined like this for a
> long time.

I don't know about that. Anything but the two-argument form of apply
strikes me as rather dialect-dependent, but I may be wrong.

> See the definition of "The Universal S-Function apply" in
> John McCarthy's paper: [1]
>
>     apply[f;args] =eval[cons[f;appq[args]];NIL],

I must admit I don't know how appq is defined.

> Also note that it is still defined like this elsewhere:

I may be misreading your examples, but they seem to me to have
different signatures from the one hitherto used in Emacs.

> Scheme: (apply function argument-list)

Precisely two args, right?

> Common Lisp:  apply function &rest args+ => result*

At least two args.

> Clojure: (apply f args)

Precisely two args again?

Previous Next

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