GNU bug report logs - #56974
29.0.50; Missing documentation for former subr-x macros

Previous Next

Full log

Message #32 received at 56974 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
To: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
Cc: 56974 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>,
 Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#56974: 29.0.50; Missing documentation for former subr-x macros
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 09:10:22 +0000

Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de> writes:

> Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:
>
>> when-let is a 3:1 winner over when-let* in the Emacs tree, so I think
>> the public has spokeneth, and we should document when-let and not
>> when-let*.  (And just pretend that when-let doesn't have the compat
>> forms in the manual.)
>
> Could be that most uses date from before the new names had been added.
> AFAIR using the * names was an agreement in some thread in the past -
> when this had been discussed the last time.

I could imagine this being the case, and from grepping through lisp/.  I
also get the impression that people decide to use when-let vs. when-let*
the same way they would when choosing between let and let*, even though
both function more like let* than let.  Making one "more official" by
documenting the less confusingly named alternatives seems like an
argument for the *'ed ones to me.

> Personally I don't care that much, both names are equally good (or bad).
> I would make them synonymous.  Although when-let and and-let are already
> synonymous names...

What and-let are you referring to?  All I can find is and-let*.  Unless
I am missing something, I'd also argue that for the sake of consistency
documenting if-let* and when-let* would be preferable.

> Michael.

Previous Next

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