GNU bug report logs - #45428
27.1; (quote (quote (quote ...))) unexpectedly works as anonymous face

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Markus Triska <triska <at> metalevel.at>

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 12:41:02 UTC

Severity: minor

Tags: wontfix

Found in version 27.1

Done: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, drew.adams <at> oracle.com
Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, stefan <at> marxist.se, triska <at> metalevel.at, 45428 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#45428: 27.1; (quote (quote (quote ...))) unexpectedly works as anonymous face
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 10:54:58 -0800 (PST)
> > > Shouldn't that just mean that the bug remains open?
> > I'm not sure I agree that there is a bug.
> 
> Or maybe I should turn the table and ask: what bug do you see with
> this recipe, and what would you like to see instead?
> 
> To be specific, here's the recipe:
>   emacs -Q
>   M-x font-lock-mode RET
>   M-: (insert (propertize "hello" 'face (quote (quote '(:height 10.0))))) RET

Yes, I was using such a recipe to follow this bug.

I see the same thing that I see when I use this:

(insert (propertize "hello" 'face '(:height 10.0)))

That second sexp follows the description (doc) of
`propertize'.  The first sexp does not.

The bug, IMO, is that this is not "a sequence of
PROPERY VALUE pairs...", which is what the doc
says it should be:

 (quote (quote '(:height 10.0))) 

I wouldn't think of this as a doc bug because (1)
this behavior is so unusual, and (2) I see no
reason for it - no advantage in any way.

Wrt #1: nowhere else, AFAIK, do we accept
   (quote (quote (quote SEXP)))
or (quote (quote (quote (quote (quote SEXP)))))
or <add more `quote' ...> as a substitute for SEXP.

Those sexps are certainly are not equivalent for `eval'.

We don't do that anywhere else, and I don't see
why we should do it here (or anywhere)?  I asked
whether there's some special reason we should.

You've said, I think, that you too see no reason
why this is done, except the possible historical
one of it having just happened by "accident".

That's not a good reason for keeping this exceptional
(I'd say bugged) behavior, IMO.  That's all.




This bug report was last modified 4 years and 201 days ago.

Previous Next


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