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: Shynur Xie <one.last.kiss <at> outlook.com>
Subject: bug#64290: closed (Re: bug#64290: “named-let”
 doc bug?)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 15:44:02 +0000

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

Your bug report

#64290: “named-let” doc bug?

which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 64290 <at> debbugs.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: 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.

[Message part 3 (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

Previous Next

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