GNU bug report logs - #65344
28.2; Unable to Edebug cl-flet form which uses argument destructuring

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com>
To: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
Cc: brandon.irizarry <at> gmail.com, Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>, Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>, 65344 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#65344: 28.2; Unable to Edebug cl-flet form which uses argument destructuring
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 08:17:59 +0200

Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de> writes:

> Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Edebug then matches def-form with ((x y)) or (&rest x), and it finds it
>> doesn't match.  I would have expected that this leads to backtracking
>> and trying the second alternative of the &or, but that's not
>> happening.
>
> It's very similar to the originally reported problem.  As I said - maybe
> look at `edebug-list-form' which is called in both cases and
> intentionally inhibits backtracking, AFAIU.

That's correct.  Setting edebug-gate to t makes not matching an error.
That's the, confusing to me, invalid-read-syntax.  I understand that.

What I don't understand is if that's intended, or maybe an oversight.
Oversight, because it prevents a, in my opinion, valid-looking use of
def-form like in our case, inside an &or.

Difficult.

One could of course try filtering out constructs that def-form doesn't
like with a preceeding &not, but that's such an effing solution that my
arm hairs stand up.  I don't think I'll do that.

Previous Next

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