Subject: Re: bug#65344: 28.2; Unable to Edebug cl-flet form which uses argument destructuring

From: Michael Heerdegen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2023 05:57:37 +0200

Gerd Möllmann <[email-masked]> writes:

> (debug ((&rest [&or (&define [&name symbolp "@cl-flet@"]
> 			[&name [] gensym] ;Make it unique!
> 			cl-lambda-list
> 			cl-declarations-or-string
> 			[&optional ("interactive" interactive)]
> 			def-body)
> 		    (&define [&name symbolp "@cl-flet@"]
> 			[&name [] gensym] ;Make it unique!
> 			def-body)])

> The second &define is for the (FN EXPR) bindings.  It comes after the
> &define for "normal" function bindings because because, for some
> reason, apparently the second &define also matches the other case.

That's because you use 'def-body' which matches any number of body
expressions.  I think this is not correct: we are expecting a single
form.

Apart from that: yes, something like this... I did not yet understand
the &name magic.

And i wonder whether we should apply the distributive law and factor out
the first few identical specs inside the &or.

Michael.