GNU bug report logs - #44943
28.0.50; defvar may return INITVALUE and overwrite symbol's value

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Kazuhiro Ito <kzhr <at> d1.dion.ne.jp>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#44943: closed (28.0.50; defvar may return INITVALUE and
 overwrite symbol's value)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 12:07:01 +0000

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

Your message dated Sun, 29 Nov 2020 21:06:26 +0900
with message-id <86ft4sfjul.wl--xmue <at> d1.dion.ne.jp>
and subject line Re: bug#44943: 28.0.50; defvar may return INITVALUE and overwrite symbol's value
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #44943,
regarding 28.0.50; defvar may return INITVALUE and overwrite symbol's value
to be marked as done.

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


-- 
44943: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=44943
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

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

From: Kazuhiro Ito <kzhr <at> d1.dion.ne.jp>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 28.0.50; defvar may return INITVALUE and overwrite symbol's value
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 19:49:22 +0900

When evaluate below codes, I get unexpected result.

(defvar test 1)

-> test

It is expected.

(defvar test 2)

-> 2

It should return 'test'.

(symbol-value 'test)

-> 2

It should return 1.

-- 
Kazuhiro Ito

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

From: Kazuhiro Ito <kzhr <at> d1.dion.ne.jp>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 44943-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#44943: 28.0.50;
 defvar may return INITVALUE and overwrite symbol's value
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 21:06:26 +0900

> > When evaluate below codes, I get unexpected result.
> >
> > (defvar test 1)
> >
> > -> test
> >
> > It is expected.
> >
> > (defvar test 2)
> >
> > -> 2
> >
> > It should return 'test'.
> >
> > (symbol-value 'test)
> >
> > -> 2
> >
> > It should return 1.
> 
> When you say "evaluate", what do you mean?  Doing `C-x C-e' after the
> form?  If it's the latter, then the doc string explains what's
> happening (and this is new behaviour in Emacs 28):

I meant C-j in *scratch* buffer (eval-print-last-sexp) and `C-x C-e'.
They return the same result.  I didn't notice the change of
eval-last-sexp, sorry.  I'm closing this issue.

-- 
Kazuhiro Ito

Previous Next

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