GNU bug report logs - #64290
“named-let” doc bug?

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 64290 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 64290 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Shynur Xie <one.last.kiss <at> outlook.com>
To: "bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
Subject: “named-let” doc bug?
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2023 23:16:41 +0000

The following code seems fine semantically and grammatically:

    ;; -*- lexical-binding: nil; -*-
    (named-let f ((n 1))
      (dotimes (i n)
        (f 0)))

But it throws error.

Perhaps we should clarify that “‘named-let’ works as expected only
when ‘lexical-binding’ is enabled” in relevant doc?

--
shynur

Message #8 received at 64290 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Shynur Xie <one.last.kiss <at> outlook.com>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 64290 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#64290: “named-let” doc bug?
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 15:19:35 +0300

> From: Shynur Xie <one.last.kiss <at> outlook.com>
> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2023 23:16:41 +0000
> msip_labels: 
> 
> The following code seems fine semantically and grammatically:
> 
>     ;; -*- lexical-binding: nil; -*-
>     (named-let f ((n 1))
>       (dotimes (i n)
>         (f 0)))
> 
> But it throws error.
> 
> Perhaps we should clarify that “‘named-let’ works as expected only
> when ‘lexical-binding’ is enabled” in relevant doc?

Stefan, any comments?

Message #11 received at 64290 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Shynur Xie <one.last.kiss <at> outlook.com>, 64290 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#64290: “named-let” doc bug?
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 09:59:13 -0400

>> The following code seems fine semantically and grammatically:
>> 
>>     ;; -*- lexical-binding: nil; -*-
>>     (named-let f ((n 1))
>>       (dotimes (i n)
>>         (f 0)))
>> 
>> But it throws error.
>> 
>> Perhaps we should clarify that “‘named-let’ works as expected only
>> when ‘lexical-binding’ is enabled” in relevant doc?
>
> Stefan, any comments?

That or adding a check in `named-let` and raise an error when applicable.


        Stefan

Message #16 received at 64290-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: one.last.kiss <at> outlook.com, 64290-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#64290: “named-let” doc bug?
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 18:43:03 +0300

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: Shynur Xie <one.last.kiss <at> outlook.com>,  64290 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 09:59:13 -0400
> 
> >> The following code seems fine semantically and grammatically:
> >> 
> >>     ;; -*- lexical-binding: nil; -*-
> >>     (named-let f ((n 1))
> >>       (dotimes (i n)
> >>         (f 0)))
> >> 
> >> But it throws error.
> >> 
> >> Perhaps we should clarify that “‘named-let’ works as expected only
> >> when ‘lexical-binding’ is enabled” in relevant doc?
> >
> > Stefan, any comments?
> 
> That or adding a check in `named-let` and raise an error when applicable.

I went with the former on the release branch.  I think raising an
error is only appropriate for the master branch, if we even think it's
a good idea.

Previous Next

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