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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#64290: closed (“named-let” doc bug?)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 15:44:01 +0000

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

Your message dated Mon, 26 Jun 2023 18:43:03 +0300
with message-id <83pm5iw7p4.fsf <at> gnu.org>
and subject line Re: bug#64290: “named-let” doc bug?
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #64290,
regarding “named-let” doc bug?
to be marked as done.

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


-- 
64290: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=64290
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

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

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 part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

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.