GNU bug report logs - #62020
Lisp reader: dotted pair notation not working when initial elements are omitted

Previous Next

Full log

Message #32 received at 62020 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>
Cc: 62020 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, federicotedin <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#62020: Lisp reader: dotted pair notation not working when
 initial elements are omitted
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 14:19:09 +0200

> From: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>
> Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 10:32:48 +0100
> Cc: federicotedin <at> gmail.com, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, 62020 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> 10 mars 2023 kl. 12.55 skrev Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>:
> 
> > Documentation changes are always fine for a release branch, but I'd
> > prefer to discuss a specific patch, if you don't mind posting one.
> 
> Not at all. There's not much to see here -- the minimal change would just remove a paragraph:
> 
> diff --git a/doc/lispref/objects.texi b/doc/lispref/objects.texi
> index 99a3c073971..2fe7e6db560 100644
> --- a/doc/lispref/objects.texi
> +++ b/doc/lispref/objects.texi
> @@ -1007,13 +1007,6 @@ Dotted Pair Notation
>  @end example
>  @end ifnottex
>  
> -  As a somewhat peculiar side effect of @code{(a b . c)} and
> -@code{(a . (b . c))} being equivalent, for consistency this means
> -that if you replace @code{b} here with the empty sequence, then it
> -follows that @code{(a . c)} and @code{(a . ( . c))} are equivalent,
> -too.  This also means that @code{( .  c)} is equivalent to @code{c},
> -but this is seldom used.
> -

OK, thanks.

Previous Next

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