From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jul 09 11:52:39 2010 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Jul 2010 15:52:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXFsU-00053p-Qp for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 11:52:39 -0400 Received: from mail.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166] helo=mx10.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXFsS-00053k-Bg for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 11:52:36 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]:56910) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OXFsN-0003nS-G5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 11:52:31 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49282 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OXFsL-0005RL-B4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 11:52:30 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXFsK-0006RY-18 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 11:52:29 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:63907) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXFsJ-0006RC-Pl for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 11:52:27 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o69FqPFu014787 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 15:52:26 GMT Received: from acsmt355.oracle.com (acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o695CZh0029246 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 15:52:24 GMT Received: from abhmt004.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 413300931278690727; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:52:07 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.175.236.134) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:52:07 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: Subject: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 08:52:05 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acsffq32BMeCz/ELTiKqd7im2jsvHQ== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090204.4C3745B8.020C:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) Both in the doc string and the Elisp manual the doc for `catch' is wrong, or at best misleading. The syntax is given as (catch TAG BODY...). But the description refers to BODY as if there were only one BODY, and it refers to "the forms of the BODY", by which it probably means to refer to the BODYs, that is, the BODY items in the list (BODY...). "BODY" is anyway the wrong term to use here, as it suggests (even if it does not imply) that only one such sexp is allowed. But more importantly, it is incorrect to refer to "the forms of the BODY" when what is really meant is the list of BODYs. When the doc says "the value of the last body form is returned" it really means that the value of the last BODY sexp is returned - not the last form in BODY. (In this case, the wording would not be so bad, if the rest of the passage were correct and clear - and if BODY were uppercase.) If you grep the Emacs Lisp sources, you will find very few uses (none?) of `catch' where there is more than one BODY sexp. Dunno if this might partly be a result of confusion over the syntax. Probably not. But it wouldn't hurt to clarify the doc, making it clear that you can have any number of sexps after TAG, and that the value of the last such sexp is returned if no throw occurs. And do not call these sexps "bodies" - there is typically only one "body" in a Lisp form. You might speak of the "body" of a `progn', a `let', or a `catch', but you should not call each of the sexps in such a body "BODY". Together, the sexps in a `progn' form its body, but each is not individually a BODY. In GNU Emacs 24.0.50.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600) of 2010-06-28 on 3249CTO Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600 configured using `configure --with-gcc (4.4) --no-opt --cflags -Ic:/xpm/include' From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jul 09 13:49:20 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Jul 2010 17:49:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXHhQ-0005wg-5H for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 13:49:20 -0400 Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXHhN-0005wZ-Ta for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 13:49:19 -0400 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L5A00F00XDXYV00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:49:01 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.120.144]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L5A00CMBXHME9A0@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:48:59 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:48:12 +0300 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Drew Adams Message-id: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> References: X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) > From: "Drew Adams" > Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 08:52:05 -0700 > Cc: > > to BODY as if there were only one BODY, and it refers to "the forms of > the BODY", by which it probably means to refer to the BODYs, that is, > the BODY items in the list (BODY...). > > "BODY" is anyway the wrong term to use here, as it suggests (even if it > does not imply) that only one such sexp is allowed. But more > importantly, it is incorrect to refer to "the forms of the BODY" when > what is really meant is the list of BODYs. No, ``forms of BODY'' is correct. No one said that BODY can contain only one sexp. > When the doc says "the value of the last body form is returned" it > really means that the value of the last BODY sexp is returned - not the > last form in BODY. What's the difference? IMO, it doesn't make sense to talk about "BODYs", since the whole doc string doesn't make sense then. And please don't argue: this is my opinion, and we don't have to agree. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jul 09 15:37:08 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Jul 2010 19:37:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXJNj-0006m2-WF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:37:08 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXJNg-0006lg-Nt for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:37:05 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o69JavHF019066 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 9 Jul 2010 19:36:59 GMT Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o69D6qu1025282; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 19:36:56 GMT Received: from abhmt017.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 393503801278704214; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 12:36:54 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.175.236.134) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 12:36:54 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 12:36:53 -0700 Message-ID: <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> Thread-Index: Acsfjw4/ovU1biKpS9q0LwkcMa7QpwAALiOA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A0B020A.4C377A59.00F8:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > > to BODY as if there were only one BODY, and it refers to > > "the forms of the BODY", by which it probably means to > > refer to the BODYs, that is, the BODY items in the list > > (BODY...). > > > > "BODY" is anyway the wrong term to use here, as it suggests > > (even if it does not imply) that only one such sexp is > > allowed. But more importantly, it is incorrect to refer to > > "the forms of the BODY" when what is really meant is the > > list of BODYs. > > No, ``forms of BODY'' is correct. No one said that BODY can contain > only one sexp. No one, including me. You're missing the point. Each BODY here can contain 8 million sexps. But there is not necessarily only one BODY. And a BODY here is not an implicit `progn'. A BODY here is not just a list of sexps that are evaled and whose value is the value of the last sexp in the list. A BODY here is an arbitrary sexp. The value of each BODY is just its value as a sexp. The BODY value is not the value of the last sexp contained within the BODY. Any BODY _could_ be an explicit `progn', which contains sexps that are evaled in sequence and whose value is the value of the last one. But that "value of the last one" part then comes from the meaning of `progn', not from BODY being an arbitrary sexp. You cannot write (catch 'foo ((setq a b) (+ 1 4))), which is (catch TAG BODY) with a single BODY that contains two sexps. A BODY is not an implicit `progn'. The value of any BODY in BODY... is simply its value as a sexp (evaled). It is not the (value of the) last form in THE body that is returned. Unless you meant the "body" of the (catch...) - that is everything that follows TAG, and not one BODY in BODY.... But if you say "body" you imply (at least suggest) that you are referring to a BODY. It is the (value of the) last BODY among the list of bodies that is returned. > > When the doc says "the value of the last body form is > > returned" it really means that the value of the last > > BODY sexp is returned - not the last form in BODY. > > What's the difference? Body as form, not form within body. If you want to speak about a form (the last one) within BODY, then you need to also state which BODY you mean in BODY.... "Last body form" is ambiguous. Does it mean the last BODY in BODY... or the last sexp within (some) BODY? Make clear that you are talking about one BODY among the possibly multiple bodies: the last BODY. The description is not consistent and clear. In particular, this part: "With the return point in effect, `catch' evaluates the forms of the BODY in textual order. If the forms execute normally (without error or nonlocal exit) the value of the last body form is returned from the `catch'." "The forms of the BODY" is problematic - which BODY? And it's incorrect. The forms within a BODY are not necessarily evaled in textual order. Is "the last body form" the last form in a BODY or the last BODY as a whole? A BODY is a "form", and it is also composed of forms. Be clear which you mean at each point in the text. Saying "evaluates _each_ BODY" instead of "evaluates the forms of _the_ BODY" would be a big first improvement. I do not care what exact wording you use. The point is that the text is not clear as is. > IMO, it doesn't make sense to talk about "BODYs", since the whole > doc string doesn't make sense then. I do _not_ suggest to use the term "BODYs". See above for clarification. I do not care what wording you choose, but please fix the problem. > And please don't argue: this is my opinion, and we don't have to > agree. Can we agree about the _problem_? If you see the problem, then I'll leave it up to you what wording you want for the solution. I _suggest_ that you not even use the term "BODY" when multiple such critters are allowed, because "body" typically refers to _the_ main part (not parts) of something. A `progn' has a single body (composed of multiple sexps/forms). Likewise a `let', an HTML page, etc. [Common Lisp doc shows (progn FORM*), not (progn BODY*). Likewise, its syntax for `let' etc. AFAICT, it is only the Emacs Lisp doc that uses the weird convention of BODY...] This use of "BODY" has tripped up the language of the Emacs doc: We speak of the last form in the body, where by "the body" we really mean the whole BODY..., not any single BODY. But I see now that you've (we've) done the same thing for `progn', `let', etc. Dommage. I suggest changing BODY to FORM or SEXP for all cases where we currently have "BODY...". But that part of my report is only a (minor) _suggestion_. I have no big problem with your using "BODY" in this way, even though the word suggests something different from what is meant. Use the term that way, if you want. The point is to then speak about "body"/"BODY" consistently. You cannot use the term to mean both (a) the set of all sexps BODY... and (b) a single sexp, BODY, within that set. The real problem is not the word "body" - if you use it consistently. It is the ambiguity in speaking about "BODY form" etc. It is not sufficiently clear when you mean a form within a BODY or BODY itself (it is a form). A second problem is giving the impression that the value of a BODY is the value of the last form within it. That is incorrect. No BODY here is an implicit `progn'. Each is an ordinary sexp, and its value is determined normally. The value of the ordinary sexp (+ 2 5) is 7, not 5 (which is the value of the last sexp within it). The doc string of `let' has the same problem: "The value of the last form in BODY is returned." It should say "the value of the last BODY". Each BODY is a sexp, and none of those sexps are implicit `progn's. `let' itself has an implicit `progn', and if you mean the body of the `let', which can be considered all that follows the declarations, then the statement is true: it does return the value of the last form in the body (in that sense). But not 'the last form in BODY", because BODY is just one of the sexps in the body. My advice is to steer away from "body form" and "BODY" and try to clear things up a bit. Reread the doc text _trying_ to look for possible misreadings. If you recognize the problem then I'm sure you'll do a fine job of fixing it. Thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jul 10 01:44:48 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2010 05:44:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXSrn-0002Ra-BW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:44:47 -0400 Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com ([74.125.83.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXSrl-0002RV-D0 for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:44:46 -0400 Received: by gwj15 with SMTP id 15so1729631gwj.3 for <6591@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 22:44:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.13.18 with SMTP id 18mr2924550ybm.198.1278740680507; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 22:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.98.19 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 22:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:44:40 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: E4Vuxjg-NEWVSOe0HiIS8mE56PQ Message-ID: Subject: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' From: MON KEY To: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.1 (---) ,---- | The description is not consistent and clear. In particular, this | part: | | "With the return point in effect, `catch' evaluates the forms of | the BODY in textual order. If the forms execute normally (without | error or nonlocal exit) the value of the last body form is | returned from the `catch'." | | "The forms of the BODY" is problematic - which BODY? And it's | incorrect. The forms within a BODY are not necessarily evaled in | textual order. `---- Given that the Emacs Lisp dialect is described as being derived from Maclisp and being a Lisp2 in some respects resembles Common Lisp the following excerpts may of interest/relevance: ---- Following from the Pitmanual "Sunday Morning Edition" The Revised Maclisp Manual Page A-5 :SOURCE (URL `http://maclisp.info/pitmanual/contro.html#5.13.3') CATCH Special Form (CATCH form [tag]) CATCH is an archaic (destined to become obsolete) special form for doing structured non-local exits. See documentation on its replacement, *CATCH. CATCH forms can be translated to *CATCH as follows: old new (CATCH form tag) (*CATCH 'tag form) (CATCH form) (*CATCH NIL form). Historically, (CATCH form) evolved to handle the fact that programmers were using (ERRSET (...(ERR)...)) to accomplish non-local returns since there was once no other way to get that functionality. CATCH and THROW were introduced so that programmers could write (CATCH (...(THROW val)...)) instead where there was really no error condition. However, it was found that confusion would often result using unlabelled CATCH/THROW because an unlablled CATCH could catch a throw it hadn't intended to. This is why named CATCH was invented. It is strongly recommended, therefore, that if you are re-writing (CATCH form) to a *CATCH according to the above rules, you also go to the extra trouble to choose some tag. This is not as easy because it involves changing related THROW's in the same module to all use the same tag (and perhaps other CATCH's, or even some *THROW's and/or *CATCH's), but it'll enhance the reliability of your code quite a lot. See also: *CATCH, CATCH-BARRIER, CATCHALL, THROW, ERRSET THROW Special Form (THROW form [tag]) THROW is an archaic (destined to become obsolete) special form. See documentation on its replacement, *THROW. THROW forms can be translated to *THROW as follows: old new (THROW form tag) (*THROW 'tag form). (THROW form) (*THROW NIL form). See also: *THROW, CATCH, ERR ;;; =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Following from an unofficial version of dpans3-texi of ANSI Common Lisp: catch (Special Operator) Syntax: -- Special Form: catch TAG {form}* =E2=86=92 {result}* Arguments and Values: TAG--a catch tag; evaluated. FORMS--an implicit progn. RESULTS--if the FORMS exit normally, the values returned by the FORMS; if a throw occurs to the TAG, the values that are thrown. Description: =E2=80=98catch=E2=80=99 is used as the destination of a non-local control t= ransfer by =E2=80=98throw=E2=80=99. TAGS are used to find the =E2=80=98catch=E2=80=99= to which a =E2=80=98throw=E2=80=99 is transferring control. =E2=80=98(catch 'foo form)=E2=80=99 catches a =E2=80= =98(throw 'foo form)=E2=80=99 but not a =E2=80=98(throw 'bar form)=E2=80=99. The order of execution of =E2=80=98catch=E2=80=99 follows: 1. TAG is evaluated. It serves as the name of the =E2=80=98catch=E2=80= =99. 2. FORMS are then evaluated as an implicit =E2=80=98progn=E2=80=99, and t= he results of the last FORM are returned unless a =E2=80=98throw=E2=80=99 occurs. 3. If a =E2=80=98throw=E2=80=99 occurs during the execution of one of the= FORMS, control is transferred to the =E2=80=98catch=E2=80=99 form whose TAG = is =E2=80=98eq=E2=80=99 to the tag argument of the =E2=80=98throw=E2=80=99 and which is the most = recently established =E2=80=98catch=E2=80=99 with that TAG. No further evaluat= ion of FORMS occurs. 4. The TAG established by =E2=80=98catch=E2=80=99 is disestablished just = before the results are returned. If during the execution of one of the FORMS, a =E2=80=98throw=E2=80=99 is e= xecuted whose tag is =E2=80=98eq=E2=80=99 to the =E2=80=98catch=E2=80=99 tag, then = the values specified by the =E2=80=98throw=E2=80=99 are returned as the result of the dynamically most = recently established =E2=80=98catch=E2=80=99 form with that tag. The mechanism for =E2=80=98catch=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98throw=E2=80=99 works= even if =E2=80=98throw=E2=80=99 is not within the lexical scope of =E2=80=98catch=E2=80=99. =E2=80=98throw=E2=80= =99 must occur within the dynamic extent of the evaluation of the body of a =E2=80=98catch=E2=80=99 w= ith a corresponding TAG. Examples: (catch 'dummy-tag 1 2 (throw 'dummy-tag 3) 4) =E2=86=92 3 (catch 'dummy-tag 1 2 3 4) =E2=86=92 4 (defun throw-back (tag) (throw tag t)) =E2=86=92 THROW-BACK (catch 'dummy-tag (throw-back 'dummy-tag) 2) =E2=86=92 T ;; Contrast behavior of this example with corresponding example of BLOCK. (catch 'c (flet ((c1 () (throw 'c 1))) (catch 'c (c1) (print 'unreachable)) 2)) =E2=86=92 2 Exceptional Situations: An error of type =E2=80=98control-error=E2=80=99 is signaled if =E2=80=98th= row=E2=80=99 is done when there is no suitable =E2=80=98catch=E2=80=99 TAG. See Also: throw Notes: It is customary for symbols to be used as TAGS, but any object is permitted. However, numbers should not be used because the comparison is done using =E2=80=98eq=E2=80=99. =E2=80=98catch=E2=80=99 differs from =E2=80=98block=E2=80=99 in that =E2=80= =98catch=E2=80=99 tags have dynamic scope while =E2=80=98block=E2=80=99 names have lexical scope. -- throw (Special Operator) Syntax: -- Special Form: throw tag result-form =E2=86=92| Arguments and Values: TAG--a catch tag; evaluated. RESULT-FORM--a form; evaluated as described below. Description: =E2=80=98throw=E2=80=99 causes a non-local control transfer to a =E2=80=98c= atch=E2=80=99 whose tag is =E2=80=98eq=E2=80=99 to TAG. TAG is evaluated first to produce an object called the throw tag; then RESULT-FORM is evaluated, and its results are saved. If the RESULT-FORM produces multiple values, then all the values are saved. The most recent outstanding =E2=80=98catch=E2=80=99 whose TAG is =E2=80=98eq=E2=80= =99 to the throw tag is exited; the saved results are returned as the value or values of =E2=80=98catch=E2=80=99. The transfer of control initiated by =E2=80=98throw=E2=80=99 is performed a= s described in Section 5.2. Examples: (catch 'result (setq i 0 j 0) (loop (incf j 3) (incf i) (if (=3D i 3) (throw 'result (values i j))))) =E2=86=92 3, 9 (catch nil (unwind-protect (throw nil 1) (throw nil 2))) =E2=86=92 2 The consequences of the following are undefined because the =E2=80=98catch= =E2=80=99 of =E2=80=98b=E2=80=99 is passed over by the first =E2=80=98throw=E2=80=99, he= nce portable programs must assume that its dynamic extent is terminated. The binding of the catch tag is not yet disestablished and therefore it is the target of the second =E2=80=98throw=E2=80=99. (catch 'a (catch 'b (unwind-protect (throw 'a 1) (throw 'b 2)))) The following prints "=E2=80=98The inner catch returns :SECOND-THROW=E2=80= =99" and then returns =E2=80=98:outer-catch=E2=80=99. (catch 'foo (format t "The inner catch returns ~s.~%" (catch 'foo (unwind-protect (throw 'foo :first-throw) (throw 'foo :second-throw)))) :outer-catch) =E2=96=B7 The inner catch returns :SECOND-THROW =E2=86=92 :OUTER-CATCH Exceptional Situations: If there is no outstanding catch tag that matches the throw tag, no unwinding of the stack is performed, and an error of type =E2=80=98control-error=E2=80=99 is signaled. When the error is signaled, t= he dynamic environment is that which was in force at the point of the =E2=80=98throw= =E2=80=99. See Also: block, catch, return-from, unwind-protect Notes: =E2=80=98catch=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98throw=E2=80=99 are normally used when = the exit point must have dynamic scope (e.g., the =E2=80=98throw=E2=80=99 is not lexically enclosed = by the =E2=80=98catch=E2=80=99), while =E2=80=98block=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98return= =E2=80=99 are used when lexical scope is sufficient. -- /s_P\ From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jul 10 03:51:12 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2010 07:51:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXUq7-0003GL-T5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 03:51:12 -0400 Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il ([80.179.55.169]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXUq4-0003GG-4D for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 03:51:10 -0400 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L5C008000A0O300@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:50:41 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.120.144]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L5C006EA0GF6D80@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:50:41 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:48:37 +0300 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' In-reply-to: <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Drew Adams Message-id: <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: <6591@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 12:36:53 -0700 > > > > to BODY as if there were only one BODY, and it refers to > > > "the forms of the BODY", by which it probably means to > > > refer to the BODYs, that is, the BODY items in the list > > > (BODY...). > > > > > > "BODY" is anyway the wrong term to use here, as it suggests > > > (even if it does not imply) that only one such sexp is > > > allowed. But more importantly, it is incorrect to refer to > > > "the forms of the BODY" when what is really meant is the > > > list of BODYs. > > > > No, ``forms of BODY'' is correct. No one said that BODY can contain > > only one sexp. > > No one, including me. Really? Then what's this about: > > > "BODY" is anyway the wrong term to use here, as it suggests > > > (even if it does not imply) that only one such sexp is > > > allowed. "only one such sexp is allowed" -- what can be more clear? > You're missing the point. Probably because you didn't succeed explaining it. > Each BODY here can contain 8 million sexps. But there is not necessarily only > one BODY. BODY is by definition everything that follows TAG. That's it. Saying that there are multiple BODYs breaks the model on which the entire description is built. > Body as form, not form within body. If you want to speak about a form (the last > one) within BODY, then you need to also state which BODY you mean in BODY.... > > "Last body form" is ambiguous. Does it mean the last BODY in BODY... or the > last sexp within (some) BODY? Make clear that you are talking about one BODY > among the possibly multiple bodies: the last BODY. Sorry, I cannot parse all this. Maybe you are saying what I just said above, maybe not. At least I hope that I made myself clear. > "With the return point in effect, `catch' evaluates the forms of the > BODY in textual order. If the forms execute normally (without > error or nonlocal exit) the value of the last body form is > returned from the `catch'." > > "The forms of the BODY" is problematic - which BODY? There's only one, so no ambiguity here. > And it's incorrect. The forms within a BODY are not necessarily > evaled in textual order. Example, please. > Is "the last body form" the last form in a BODY or the last BODY as a whole? The former. More accurately, "the last form in _the_ BODY", although doc strings traditionally omit "the", in effect treating arguments as proper names. > A BODY is a "form", and it is also composed of forms. Yes, but what's the problem here? A list can also be composed of lists, but that doesn't yet mean it's not a list. > Saying "evaluates _each_ BODY" instead of "evaluates the forms of _the_ BODY" > would be a big first improvement. There's only one BODY. > > IMO, it doesn't make sense to talk about "BODYs", since the whole > > doc string doesn't make sense then. > > I do _not_ suggest to use the term "BODYs". See above for clarification. Unfortunately, that doesn't clarify anything. You got my poor self tangled in the web of "body", "BODYs", "forms", etc. Help me out. > I do not care what wording you choose, but please fix the problem. It would help to understand what is "the problem". Maybe instead of talking abstractions you could give a couple of examples that either follow the documentation but are incorrect, or contradict the docs while being correct. Then show how these mistakes are related to possible misreadings of the docs. > I _suggest_ that you not even use the term "BODY" when multiple such critters > are allowed There's only one BODY, by definition. > because "body" typically refers to _the_ main part (not parts) of > something. A `progn' has a single body (composed of multiple sexps/forms). > Likewise a `let', an HTML page, etc. You seem to use a different definition of BODY. Maybe that's your problem; don't. > This use of "BODY" has tripped up the language of the Emacs doc: We speak of the > last form in the body, where by "the body" we really mean the whole BODY..., not > any single BODY. There's only one BODY. It consists of one or more forms. > But I see now that you've (we've) done the same thing for `progn', `let', etc. Exactly. > Dommage. Why? because it doesn't coincide with your notion of BODY? That's not a reason good enough to change large portions of the docs. > Use the term that way, if you want. The point is to then speak about > "body"/"BODY" consistently. Please show where do you see inconsistency in the documentation. > You cannot use the term to mean both (a) the set of > all sexps BODY... and (b) a single sexp, BODY, within that set. Where do we do that in the docs? > The real problem is not the word "body" - if you use it consistently. It is the > ambiguity in speaking about "BODY form" etc. It is not sufficiently clear when > you mean a form within a BODY or BODY itself (it is a form). The former. Is this issue (using the phrase "BODY form") the only problem with the doc string, or are there others? > A second problem is giving the impression that the value of a BODY is the value > of the last form within it. That is incorrect. No BODY here is an implicit > `progn'. Each is an ordinary sexp, and its value is determined normally. The > value of the ordinary sexp (+ 2 5) is 7, not 5 (which is the value of the last > sexp within it). Sorry, I don't see the contradiction. Again, an example (using `catch', not just any isolated sexp) would help to make the discussion more productive. > The doc string of `let' has the same problem: > "The value of the last form in BODY is returned." Maybe this _consistency_ means that the problem is elsewhere, not in the use of BODY. Maybe you are reasoning in terms that are different from what the Emacs documentation uses. Please try to understand where's that difference come from. > It should say "the value of the last BODY". There's only one BODY. > if you mean the body of the `let', which can be considered all that > follows the declarations, then the statement is true Yes, that's what the documentation meant. > it does return the value of the last > form in the body (in that sense). But not 'the last form in BODY", because BODY > is just one of the sexps in the body. BODY _is_ "the body". > My advice is to steer away from "body form" and "BODY" and try to clear things > up a bit. Clear up what? You still didn't explain the problem, at least not in terms that I can understand, although I'm already after my first coffee this morning. > Reread the doc text _trying_ to look for possible misreadings. If > you recognize the problem then I'm sure you'll do a fine job of fixing it. But that's the problem: I don't see these possible misreadings. Please help me realize what they are. Again, examples might help. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jul 10 10:15:06 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2010 14:15:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXape-0006Yo-AP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:15:06 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXapc-0006YE-Bj for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:15:05 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6AEExRN013140 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:15:01 GMT Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6AEEvif031898; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:14:58 GMT Received: from abhmt019.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 394654591278771253; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 07:14:13 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/141.144.160.29) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 07:14:12 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 07:14:14 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> Thread-Index: AcsgBKdc96qo5GAET/WeI5wcb/qyKAALcNRQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090204.4C388063.01C9:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > BODY is by definition everything that follows TAG. That's it. Saying > that there are multiple BODYs breaks the model on which the entire > description is built. Ah! Then the syntax should be (catch TAG . BODY) or similar. When you write BODY... that indicates (at least to me, that catch and TAG can be followed by zero or more BODY sexps (or possibly one or more, depending on how the syntax description convention is defined). That's the point. BODY is a placeholder, presumably - whatever might be substitutable for it. BODY... is not a placeholder, presumably, but is a way of indicating that whatever is substituted for BODY can be repeated any number of times. At least that's the normal/typical way to express these things. The convention you use means that neither BODY nor BODY... is a placeholder for a Lisp form. > > "The forms of the BODY" is problematic - which BODY? > > There's only one, so no ambiguity here. The syntax BODY... does not suggest, to me, that there can be only one BODY. > > And it's incorrect. The forms within a BODY are not necessarily > > evaled in textual order. > > Example, please. If BODY is an arbitrary sexp, as I was assuming was indicated by BODY..., then choose the sexp you like that is not evaled in textual order. The typical sexp with args that are themselves sexps with args will be evaled in applicative order (innermost, left to right), which is depth-first, not necessarily "textual" order. But this is irrelevant now that you've said that BODY represents everything that follows TAG. In that case there is no problem, other than the poor choice of a syntax description method. When Common Lisp writes (catch TAG FORM*) that is clear and corresponds to typical ways to write such things. FORM is a Lisp form, and there can be any number (zero or more) such forms. > > because "body" typically refers to _the_ main part (not parts) of > > something. A `progn' has a single body (composed of > > multiple sexps/forms). Likewise a `let', an HTML page, etc. > > You seem to use a different definition of BODY. Maybe that's your > problem; don't. I think (now) that that is also the definition you are using. You are now saying that BODY is everything that follows TAG. That is what I was saying the word "body" suggests also, so I think we are agreed about that, at least. My problem was with (my assumption of) BODY being a placeholder and BODY... meaning zero or more occurrences of BODY. I was assuming that BODY... was the equivalent of BODY* in, say, the Common Lisp syntax description. What you are saying now means that BODY is not a placeholder for a sexp (form), and BODY... does not mean repetitions of BODY (there is only one), but rather BODY... is a placeholder for a list of sexps that are then _spliced_ in. IOW, (catch TAG . X), where X is the special placeholder `BODY...'. That's not an ordinary placeholder; that's not conventional syntax description. Hence my misunderstanding. > There's only one BODY. It consists of one or more forms. Yes, well that is not clear from the syntax description method you use, IMO. It is not a conventional method. Is it defined/described anywhere? > Why? because it doesn't coincide with your notion of BODY? That's not > a reason good enough to change large portions of the docs. We apparently have the same notion of "body". It is the syntax representation that is not clear. It might be well-defined and consistent, but it is not what one usually encounters. "There is one body." OK, but it is composed of zero or more sexps, and to indicate that fact you've chosen the unusual syntax `BODY...'. The "one body" does not correspond to BODY but to BODY..., and a reader must know that BODY is not a sexp (a form) and neither is BODY..., but that BODY... is a list of sexps (forms) that is _spliced_ in. The typical way to indicate this kind of thing is just (catch TAG FORM*), where TAG and FORM are placeholders for sexps and * means zero or more repetitions (so catch followed by a TAG, followed by zero or more FORMs. And then if you want to refer to the "body" as everything following TAG, just say that. > > You cannot use the term to mean both (a) the set of > > all sexps BODY... and (b) a single sexp, BODY, within that set. > > > > The real problem is not the word "body" - if you use it > > consistently. It is the ambiguity in speaking about "BODY > > form" etc. It is not sufficiently clear when > > you mean a form within a BODY or BODY itself (it is a form). > > The former. > > Is this issue (using the phrase "BODY form") the only problem with the > doc string, or are there others? The doc only (manual and doc strings). At the very least, the unusual syntax convention X... needs to be spelled out somewhere. Perhaps it is, and I missed it. I looked, for example, in node Conventions of the Elisp manual (and its subnodes). In any case, you can imagine that it would be easy to miss such an explanation, wherever it might be. That's why it's important to use more conventional descriptions (BNF, railroad diagrams, etc.). It is NOT unusual to use `...' in a syntax description. But it typically means that the element it follows can be repeated (zero or one being the minimum, depending on the system). In the syntax descriptions you/we use, BODY... does not mean that BODY is repeated. And BODY is not even substitutable by a sexp - it is not substitutable at all. It is BODY... as a unit that is substitutable, and it too is not substitutable by a sexp (Lisp form) but by a (possibly empty) list of forms, and the substitution is then _spliced_ in. That is NOT a typical syntax description method. Using `...' but giving it a different meaning from the usual sows confusion. Note, BTW, that elsewhere in the doc and code comments we write this kind of thing as (A . B), not as (A B...) - at least when it comes to Lisp sexps. So some readers are already familiar with that syntax. I think (do you agree?) that we at least understand each other now. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jul 10 10:40:47 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2010 14:40:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXbEV-0006jx-5X for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:40:47 -0400 Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXbES-0006js-Cx for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:40:45 -0400 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L5C00H00JF7EM00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 17:40:40 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.120.144]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L5C008IXJFQ5YJ0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 17:40:39 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 17:38:36 +0300 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Drew Adams Message-id: <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: <6591@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 07:14:14 -0700 > > > BODY is by definition everything that follows TAG. That's it. Saying > > that there are multiple BODYs breaks the model on which the entire > > description is built. > > Ah! Then the syntax should be (catch TAG . BODY) or similar. ^^^ Why the period? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jul 10 11:45:23 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2010 15:45:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXcF0-0007D6-QN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:45:22 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXcEz-0007D0-Am for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:45:21 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6AFjHbD006958 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:45:18 GMT Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6AFf3wJ021398; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:45:16 GMT Received: from abhmt007.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 415286211278776685; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 08:44:45 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/141.144.160.29) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 08:44:45 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 08:44:47 -0700 Message-ID: <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> Thread-Index: AcsgPeGWyLSTz9FVSumloVyTV1KOlgABSnvA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090204.4C38958D.0064:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -5.1 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > > Ah! Then the syntax should be (catch TAG . BODY) or similar. > ^^^ > Why the period? Same reason as your special `BODY...' syntax. It means _splice in_ the list BODY. Or if you like, it means that BODY is the cdr of the sexp as a list. Or if you like, it is equivalent to ,@BODY in backquote syntax. You cannot write just (catch TAG BODY). There must be some indication (`.', `...' or other) to distinguish normal substitution for a placeholder from splicing substitution for a placeholder. Substitution for TAG is treated differently from substitution for BODY. But are you just playing/kidding here? or arguing? What's the point? I'm sure that you understand the syntax (A . B) in Lisp and in our docs. I assume you are trying to make some point, but I fail to see it. Perhaps you simply want to hint that (A B...) is a notation that means the same thing as (A . B). If so, fine. However: 1. I do not think the `...' syntax is described/defined anywhere in the doc. 2. More importantly (since it is anyway easy to miss such a definition), `...' has a different meaning typically/commonly, so our interpretation (syntax convention) of `...' can easily mislead and confuse. Readers will tend to think that BODY... means zero (or one) or more repetitions of BODY. (Which is just what I originally thought it was trying to say.) So the syntax descriptors for catch, let, and progn are NOT incorrect, after all. It is the syntax convention that we've chosen that is misleading. We are entitled to any convention we like, as long as it is rigorous and we use it consistently (which I'm not questioning now). But it make sense not to use a convention that can be easily mistaken for a different convention that is more commonly used. `...' commonly means repetition of whatever it follows, and there is no repetition of BODY here (there is only one body). You decide. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jul 10 11:57:27 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2010 15:57:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXcQg-0007Ib-Pn for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:57:26 -0400 Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXcQe-0007IW-Fk for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:57:25 -0400 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L5C00100MVHG900@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:57:21 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.120.144]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L5C00JGXMZKAAC0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:57:21 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:55:18 +0300 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' In-reply-to: <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Drew Adams Message-id: <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: <6591@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 08:44:47 -0700 > > > > Ah! Then the syntax should be (catch TAG . BODY) or similar. > > ^^^ > > Why the period? > > Same reason as your special `BODY...' syntax. It means _splice in_ the list > BODY. Or if you like, it means that BODY is the cdr of the sexp as a list. Or > if you like, it is equivalent to ,@BODY in backquote syntax. > > You cannot write just (catch TAG BODY). There must be some indication (`.', > `...' or other) to distinguish normal substitution for a placeholder from > splicing substitution for a placeholder. Substitution for TAG is treated > differently from substitution for BODY. > > But are you just playing/kidding here? or arguing? What's the point? I'm sure > that you understand the syntax (A . B) in Lisp and in our docs. I assume you > are trying to make some point, but I fail to see it. I was thinking of modifying the docs to say `catch TAG BODY' and explaining in the text that BODY can be one or more forms. The problem with the period is that it could be misunderstood to mean that a period must be present in the catch form at this point, which is false. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 00:21:49 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 04:21:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXo32-0006NO-9z for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 00:21:48 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXo2z-0006N7-1V for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 00:21:46 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6B4LgkX032092 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 04:21:43 GMT Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6B1RBIk004388; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 04:21:41 GMT Received: from abhmt016.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 395146601278822063; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 21:21:03 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/141.144.160.29) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 21:21:02 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 21:21:04 -0700 Message-ID: <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> Thread-Index: AcsgSJY1hV2Fg0yoSgy6D29KVdAyRQAYzRCQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090204.4C3946D6.0071:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > I was thinking of modifying the docs to say `catch TAG BODY' and > explaining in the text that BODY can be one or more forms. > > The problem with the period is that it could be misunderstood to mean > that a period must be present in the catch form at this point, which > is false. I agree that the (A . B) notation is probably not the best one to use for this kind of thing. I just mentioned it to point out (a) that that is what is involved in the notation you are using and your interpretation of it: splicing, and (b) we do in fact use (A . B) notation at some places in our doc (but more for Lisp lists regarded as data structures, not lists regarded as sexps to be evaled). The syntax for something like (catch TAG . BODY) is commonly written not that way but the way the Common Lisp doc writes it: not in terms of BODY but in terms of what can follow TAG: zero or more forms (sexps). As I said, they write the syntax this way: (catch TAG {FORM}*) In the Oracle docs (FWIW) we use a form of BNF. We would write it this way: (catch TAG FORM...) The ellipsis indicates that a FORM can be repeated any number of times, including zero times. How does that differ from the Emacs (catch TAG BODY...)? It doesn't! Which is why I wrote this bug report. It is the text that accompanied that syntax description that didn't fit with it. Using BODY instead of FORM, and then speaking as if "body" referred not to an arbitrary individual sexp that can be repeated but collectively to everything that follows TAG is, IMO, inconsistent/misleading. But your reply indicated that you viewed `BODY...' collectively as the "body" (not BODY as the "body"), so `BODY...' for you (Emacs) is a kind of splice notation. You objected to my interpretation of the syntax description as indicating repetitions of BODY, and my complaint that what was repeated was not a "body". You made it clear that there was only one "body", corresponding to only one `BODY...' (which is not a repetition of BODY). I agreed that your way of looking at it is OK, but in that case, the `BODY...' syntax needs to be defined for readers. And since it looks just like the more common syntax description where X... means repetitions of X, some readers are bound to be confused. That's were we left the discussion. If you now say that you are open to looking for another syntax to use, then I would return to my initial suggestion (but I won't argue that it is the only good approach): use `...' to mean repetitions of whatever it follows, in this case a sexp, and thus write (catch TAG FORM...). Introducing a grouping syntax operator (e.g. braces: {}), so the scope of the ellipsis can be controlled - e.g. (A B {C D}... E...) meaning that C D repeats and E repeats. Anyway, I think we understand each other now and I don't want to annoy you about this anymore. I'll be glad to give feedback on whatever you propose or come up with, if you want. Otherwise, I leave it up to you to decide what should be done. I've already said that I think things are a bit unclear to readers as they stand now (even if they are not incorrect), so I hope that something clearer is used. But I won't push it. Thanks for considering this. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 02:17:50 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 06:17:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXprK-00076O-MF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:17:50 -0400 Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXprH-00076J-Vw for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:17:49 -0400 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L5D00I00QOEEC00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:17:03 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.120.144]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L5D00IS4QSED600@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:17:03 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:15:01 +0300 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' In-reply-to: <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Drew Adams Message-id: <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, Richard Stallman X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: <6591@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 21:21:04 -0700 > > If you now say that you are open to looking > for another syntax to use, then I would return to my initial suggestion (but I > won't argue that it is the only good approach): use `...' to mean repetitions of > whatever it follows, in this case a sexp, and thus write (catch TAG FORM...). > Introducing a grouping syntax operator (e.g. braces: {}), so the scope of the > ellipsis can be controlled - e.g. (A B {C D}... E...) meaning that C D repeats > and E repeats. Using FORM... is okay, but will need more extensive changes, so I'd rather not do it. I'd like to simply remove the dots after BODY, and explain in the text that BODY can consist of one or more forms. Does anyone see any reason why keeping the dots in BODY... will have some didactical importance? Richard? Stefan? Yidong? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 04:15:45 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 08:15:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXrhR-0007sN-AB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 04:15:45 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com ([209.85.161.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXrhP-0007sH-EQ for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 04:15:43 -0400 Received: by fxm1 with SMTP id 1so1834072fxm.3 for <6591@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:15:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:cc:subject :in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RZXa1cPP46NMSNF5VSlsYul+HzpfWpss8DUNLIQCgEk=; b=UKeDTYEeuxg90C3P8VaXcf3vudZonZFoo4Xd3eyGr6cdEpMKvBIZgMsud4r9HJCO7j 1vUlkbVfdNEH3mMWIXlnw0JNj1rCeY4VWame15rR9ZGJTEOAQqcBTotixGH2fJOuGsJB BwFcjTjcka11d9yhAcvQI661vVbpCgZODHVm4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ch47BFJZVAKPKDycl7U6gIBb3ovqBUjEXLq2X0H1AwFlpK2q0C+idZatgHhL11li0H bVNyVvWuVUOhDkEqTdjvVAkPlcmTp1X8PAdlvNB3E0Clc1NmraopeKtWEr/Gp/0w/A/k 4mXjgXWUv12j4m2UXdH+Q3PXKsQMjP1dke5KY= Received: by 10.223.113.142 with SMTP id a14mr10123424faq.33.1278836142522; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([88.103.132.186]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q8sm6235732faa.10.2010.07.11.01.15.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:15:41 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw==?= To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' In-Reply-To: <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:15:01 +0300") References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:14:47 +0200 Message-ID: <877hl2a0zs.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -3.2 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, Richard Stallman , Drew Adams X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.2 (---) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: "Drew Adams" >> Cc: <6591@debbugs.gnu.org> >> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 21:21:04 -0700 >>=20 >> If you now say that you are open to looking >> for another syntax to use, then I would return to my initial suggestion > (but I >> won't argue that it is the only good approach): use `...' to mean > repetitions of >> whatever it follows, in this case a sexp, and thus write (catch TAG > FORM...). >> Introducing a grouping syntax operator (e.g. braces: {}), so the scope of > the >> ellipsis can be controlled - e.g. (A B {C D}... E...) meaning that C D > repeats >> and E repeats. > > Using FORM... is okay, but will need more extensive changes, so I'd > rather not do it. I'd like to simply remove the dots after BODY, and > explain in the text that BODY can consist of one or more forms. > > Does anyone see any reason why keeping the dots in BODY... will have > some didactical importance? Richard? Stefan? Yidong? Well, just look at `when' -- ISTM it has the very same "problem" as discussed here. And it's probably not the only one/two. =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 05:26:29 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 09:26:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXsnt-0008LW-8l for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 05:26:29 -0400 Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXsnq-0008LP-90 for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 05:26:27 -0400 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L5D00K00Z6F6Z00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:24:38 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.120.144]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L5D00GLTZH04C50@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:24:37 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:22:35 +0300 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' In-reply-to: <877hl2a0zs.fsf@gmail.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: =?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw==?= Message-id: <83lj9iv0dg.fsf@gnu.org> References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <877hl2a0zs.fsf@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) > From: =?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw==?= > Cc: Drew Adams , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, Richard Stallman > Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:14:47 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Using FORM... is okay, but will need more extensive changes, so I'd > > rather not do it. I'd like to simply remove the dots after BODY, and > > explain in the text that BODY can consist of one or more forms. > > > > Does anyone see any reason why keeping the dots in BODY... will have > > some didactical importance? Richard? Stefan? Yidong? > > Well, just look at `when' -- ISTM it has the very same "problem" as > discussed here. And it's probably not the only one/two. Sorry, I don't get your point. Sure, there are places in the manual that use "FORM...", but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the only possible way of describing that. "BODY..." is used in quite a few places as well, and I was only talking about those. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 07:00:38 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 11:00:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXuGz-0000Z2-VP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 07:00:38 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com ([209.85.161.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXuGx-0000Yx-3q for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 07:00:35 -0400 Received: by fxm1 with SMTP id 1so1869813fxm.3 for <6591@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 04:00:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:cc:subject :in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lK9r7wcOnWwWe7GQlGw8gctN9a2YEreuLeD4yKs3xxo=; b=VX7z1dx+aBd7efl1XOaJHA8vy2OQI0qJ90ITgWFjvEQ/qdm6MwYbpLJIYjThwKGxgZ mebWgvU1A0uE3CfM58EYxMnAErLyrLJNWyk8lA7FE8ZkP8N/5cEi3FCxAvV3KHjKkaC8 ihUoCJexw6zs5sw+gBGTTR3muwwrdFx9wMNA0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=jDzj75o7/h4yvCoS7MBuRKq7m6Uc9HPDQaDpGGgobPGM7KKUHt8tNQff14MBFH0KgW 059TVLeDDGULwIxSHar4DzhDwSpz+56LFCYnA9AYMNnuteRKSyxiD3+4FQRjcTVpbKQO VCQLqQ55sOKpD1Kbg96QNP/Lsabc9V0eUawvc= Received: by 10.223.122.6 with SMTP id j6mr1905500far.71.1278846034633; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 04:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([88.103.132.186]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i1sm6518526faa.5.2010.07.11.04.00.33 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 04:00:33 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw==?= To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' In-Reply-To: <83lj9iv0dg.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:22:35 +0300") References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <877hl2a0zs.fsf@gmail.com> <83lj9iv0dg.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:59:38 +0200 Message-ID: <8739vq9td1.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -3.2 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, rms@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.1 (---) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: =3D?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw=3D=3D?=3D >> Cc: Drew Adams , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, Richard > Stallman >> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:14:47 +0200 >>=20 >> Eli Zaretskii writes: >>=20 >> > Using FORM... is okay, but will need more extensive changes, so I'd >> > rather not do it. I'd like to simply remove the dots after BODY, and >> > explain in the text that BODY can consist of one or more forms. >> > >> > Does anyone see any reason why keeping the dots in BODY... will have >> > some didactical importance? Richard? Stefan? Yidong? >>=20 >> Well, just look at `when' -- ISTM it has the very same "problem" as >> discussed here. And it's probably not the only one/two. > > Sorry, I don't get your point. Sure, there are places in the manual > that use "FORM...", but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the only > possible way of describing that. "BODY..." is used in quite a few > places as well, and I was only talking about those. You were asking about BODY... `when' uses BODY..., and IMO in `when' `BODY...' means the very same thing as in `catch' (i.e., "any number of forms"), which you're now apparently about to change. =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 09:25:18 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 13:25:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXwX0-0002sH-KU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:25:18 -0400 Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXwWw-0002sB-Sf for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:25:16 -0400 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L5E00600A8LKF00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:25:14 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.120.144]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L5E001OWALZXCC0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:25:12 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:23:10 +0300 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' In-reply-to: <8739vq9td1.fsf@gmail.com> To: =?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw==?= Message-id: <83iq4mup8h.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <877hl2a0zs.fsf@gmail.com> <83lj9iv0dg.fsf@gnu.org> <8739vq9td1.fsf@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, rms@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) > From: =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n N=C4=9Bmec > Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, rms@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:59:38 +0200 >=20 > >> Well, just look at `when' -- ISTM it has the very same "problem"= as > >> discussed here. And it's probably not the only one/two. > > > > Sorry, I don't get your point. Sure, there are places in the man= ual > > that use "FORM...", but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the on= ly > > possible way of describing that. "BODY..." is used in quite a fe= w > > places as well, and I was only talking about those. >=20 > You were asking about BODY... > `when' uses BODY..., and IMO in `when' `BODY...' means the very sam= e > thing as in `catch' (i.e., "any number of forms"), which you're now > apparently about to change. I think you are using an old version of the ELisp manual. The latest one on the trunk doesn't use BODY... That's why I misunderstood your point. But yes, I know that `catch' is not the only one that uses BODY... an= d I intended to change them all. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 09:45:32 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 13:45:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXwqa-00031M-0N for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:45:32 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com ([209.85.161.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXwqY-00031G-LB for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:45:31 -0400 Received: by fxm1 with SMTP id 1so1906092fxm.3 for <6591@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 06:45:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:cc:subject :in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2iAEtw3SK791b8vJ/a2g49E4GZ7mHyAEbjfvBLguS6c=; b=kOHmaeShELKass74y4OyHS5XWedmPHongK6brRKMUrklf/YppiqSYS3jmRfNbivjfk kC/77frd96X8gew+R1uEWzx78L3SosHexpG0YFRPJUk91G+9tyCLbuRF27uL+24s5JrT jkjWAo+p079/QGxCCN/8heOSqNHTvYzzWDuAM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=wjxjVFMOFNCk0hzCtwFl1wXPrTjtYSD7ldwXzFFNxC0I8ioHEKTJOtW5rev0/iBRUy zy+mjPGH6dG1TzizBJ8QgI6u2CTUuWFE7IqN2qZk9HQD7vD4hX8AG5gMDcv7YPyM71qR lFdlDdDwU867o8c3GaAHk/kOSLBDsZFU4dEJg= Received: by 10.223.123.79 with SMTP id o15mr10317588far.57.1278855930011; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 06:45:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([88.103.132.186]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b1sm6095644fah.13.2010.07.11.06.45.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 06:45:29 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw==?= To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' In-Reply-To: <83iq4mup8h.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:23:10 +0300") References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <877hl2a0zs.fsf@gmail.com> <83lj9iv0dg.fsf@gnu.org> <8739vq9td1.fsf@gmail.com> <83iq4mup8h.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:44:34 +0200 Message-ID: <87y6di875p.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -3.1 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, rms@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.1 (---) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n N=C4=9Bmec >> Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, rms@gnu.org >> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:59:38 +0200 >>=20 >> >> Well, just look at `when' -- ISTM it has the very same "problem" as >> >> discussed here. And it's probably not the only one/two. >> > >> > Sorry, I don't get your point. Sure, there are places in the manual >> > that use "FORM...", but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the only >> > possible way of describing that. "BODY..." is used in quite a few >> > places as well, and I was only talking about those. >>=20 >> You were asking about BODY... >> `when' uses BODY..., and IMO in `when' `BODY...' means the very same >> thing as in `catch' (i.e., "any number of forms"), which you're now >> apparently about to change. > > I think you are using an old version of the ELisp manual. The latest > one on the trunk doesn't use BODY... That's why I misunderstood your > point. (describe-function 'when) > But yes, I know that `catch' is not the only one that uses BODY... and > I intended to change them all. I just hope you're not going to change them to `BODY' instead of `BODY...', as that would mean (when (condition) (a single form)) `FORM...' would seem more clear, but I don't really care that much. =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 10:02:30 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 14:02:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXx70-000396-6H for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:02:30 -0400 Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXx6z-00038y-3p for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:02:29 -0400 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L5E00000CAA4J00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:02:29 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.120.144]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L5E00LS4CC3CS40@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:02:29 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:00:27 +0300 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' In-reply-to: <87y6di875p.fsf@gmail.com> To: =?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw==?= Message-id: <83eifaunic.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <877hl2a0zs.fsf@gmail.com> <83lj9iv0dg.fsf@gnu.org> <8739vq9td1.fsf@gmail.com> <83iq4mup8h.fsf@gnu.org> <87y6di875p.fsf@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, rms@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) > From: =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n N=C4=9Bmec > Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, rms@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:44:34 +0200 >=20 > I just hope you're not going to change them to `BODY' instead of > `BODY...', as that would mean >=20 > (when (condition) > (a single form)) ??? Whatever gave you the idea that BODY is only one form? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 11:26:06 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 15:26:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXyPu-0004Ww-A0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:26:06 -0400 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.9]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXyPr-0004WX-Fv for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:26:04 -0400 Received: from frontend1.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.180]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38B31C15882; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:26:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from igel.home (ppp-88-217-108-81.dynamic.mnet-online.de [88.217.108.81]) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7D6F1C00418; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:26:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: by igel.home (Postfix, from userid 501) id 75E5CCA297; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:26:03 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Schwab To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <877hl2a0zs.fsf@gmail.com> <83lj9iv0dg.fsf@gnu.org> <8739vq9td1.fsf@gmail.com> <83iq4mup8h.fsf@gnu.org> <87y6di875p.fsf@gmail.com> <83eifaunic.fsf@gnu.org> X-Yow: ONE: I will donate my entire ``BABY HUEY'' comic book collection to the downtown PLASMA CENTER.. TWO: I won't START a BAND called ``KHADAFY & THE HIT SQUAD''.. THREE: I won't ever TUMBLE DRY my FOX TERRIER again!! Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:26:03 +0200 In-Reply-To: <83eifaunic.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:00:27 +0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, =?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw==?= , rms@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) Eli Zaretskii writes: > ??? Whatever gave you the idea that BODY is only one form? BODY is a single form, BODY... is a sequence of forms. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 11:34:21 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 15:34:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXyXs-0004dS-60 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:34:20 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXyXp-0004dL-L9 for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:34:18 -0400 Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com (rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6BFYGuf008210 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:34:17 GMT Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6BEEwCZ019159; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:34:16 GMT Received: from abhmt007.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 395574951278862413; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:33:33 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.175.255.126) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:33:32 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:33:34 -0700 Message-ID: <231065DA146544BC8F04D09E33D823A5@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-reply-to: <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> Thread-Index: AcsgwMpMxNAU6FHpSdiVK+b0VdOFTQAStpKw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090202.4C39E478.0165:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -5.1 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > > If you now say that you are open to looking for another > > syntax to use, then I would return to my initial suggestion > > (but I won't argue that it is the only good approach): > > use `...' to mean repetitions of whatever it follows, in > > this case a sexp, and thus write (catch TAG FORM...). > > Introducing a grouping syntax operator (e.g. braces: {}), > > so the scope of the ellipsis can be controlled - e.g. > > (A B {C D}... E...) meaning that C D repeats and E repeats. > > Using FORM... is okay, but will need more extensive changes, so I'd > rather not do it. I'd like to simply remove the dots after BODY, and > explain in the text that BODY can consist of one or more forms. AND that list of forms is SPLICED IN. That's the important part that needs to be made clear if you take your approach. IOW, reading what you just wrote, a reader will assume that BODY might be (A B C) when what you meant was A B C. E.g. this is not valid: (catch 'foo ((setq a b) (terpri) (set-buffer z))). But it follows your description fine: "BODY can consist of one or more forms". We will agree to disagree on this one. IMO, readers will not be helped, and doc maintenance will be increased in the long run, by doing what you suggest. There is a mismatch between what someone sees in the syntax description, (catch TAG BODY), and what the surrounding text needs to say in order to explain that syntax. A user sees TAG and BODY directly, and naturally supposes that each is a placeholder and the kind of thing substitutable for each placeholder is the same or similar. The text needs (at *each* occurrence of this phenomenon) to explain that this is not the case: TAG is replaceable by a sexp, BODY is replaceable by a list of sexps, but the list is spliced in. It's easy enough to say that in `(A B C)' A is a placeholder for a function symbol, B for an integer and C for any sexp (or whatever) - the types of the placeholders are straightforward. It is not so easy to explain that BODY in (catch TAG BODY) is a list of sexps but that list has no surrounding parens etc. It's your call, but in the long run what you propose will lead to more complex, confusing doc and increased doc maintenance. That will help neither reader nor writer. > Does anyone see any reason why keeping the dots in BODY... will have > some didactical importance? Richard? Stefan? Yidong? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 11:35:20 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 15:35:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXyYq-0004e6-1i for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:35:20 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXyYo-0004du-GF for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:35:18 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6BFZHLZ009854 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:35:18 GMT Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6BEFrxh030074; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:35:16 GMT Received: from abhmt016.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 416342691278862422; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:33:42 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.175.255.126) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:33:42 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Andreas Schwab'" , "'Eli Zaretskii'" References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org><5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com><83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org><83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org><3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com><83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org><38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com><83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <877hl2a0zs.fsf@gmail.com><83lj9iv0dg.fsf@gnu.org> <8739vq9td1.fsf@gmail.com><83iq4mup8h.fsf@gnu.org> <87y6di875p.fsf@gmail.com><83eifaunic.fsf@gnu.org> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:33:43 -0700 Message-ID: <4FBF308452AE4DF48F4234398DD3194D@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-reply-to: Thread-Index: AcshDfZB+BKjIITRT4+GGOP3tmkn/QAAGIGQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090205.4C39E4B5.003C:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, =?iso-8859-2?Q?'=A9tep=E1n_Nemec'?= , rms@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > > ??? Whatever gave you the idea that BODY is only one form? > > BODY is a single form, BODY... is a sequence of forms. You two have just circled 'round to the beginning of this thread. QED. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 12:33:42 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 16:33:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXzTK-00052P-NZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:33:42 -0400 Received: from pantheon-po18.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.74]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXzTJ-00052I-Ig for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:33:41 -0400 Received: from furry ([209.101.38.150]) (authenticated bits=0) by pantheon-po18.its.yale.edu (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id o6BGXf9h002260 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:33:42 -0400 Received: by furry (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A1FCDC011; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:33:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Chong Yidong To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:33:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:15:01 +0300") Message-ID: <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-YaleITSMailFilter: Version 1.2c (attachment(s) not renamed) X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, Richard Stallman , Drew Adams X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Eli Zaretskii writes: > Using FORM... is okay, but will need more extensive changes, so I'd > rather not do it. I'd like to simply remove the dots after BODY, and > explain in the text that BODY can consist of one or more forms. > > Does anyone see any reason why keeping the dots in BODY... will have > some didactical importance? Richard? Stefan? Yidong? The dots are important, because BODY normally implies one single form. We are somewhat abusing notation by using `BODY...' to denote one or more forms, but the convention is well-established and easy to grasp, and there are no better alternatives. I suggest doing everywhere what the `progn' documentation does, and refer to BODY as "BODY forms". (progn BODY...) Eval BODY forms sequentially and return value of last one. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 12:53:37 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 16:53:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXzmb-0005Bw-JU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:53:37 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXzma-0005Bm-Db for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:53:37 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6BGrY2K028537 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:53:36 GMT Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6BEEw1g028588; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:53:34 GMT Received: from abhmt001.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 395623711278867154; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:52:34 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.175.255.126) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:52:34 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Chong Yidong'" , "'Eli Zaretskii'" References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org><5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com><83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org><83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org><3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com><83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org><38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com><83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:52:35 -0700 Message-ID: <526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-reply-to: <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com> Thread-Index: AcshFtgs4U/ToXFlRgCFmNMZs68J7wAAMwpw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090203.4C39F70E.015E:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > The dots are important, because BODY normally implies one single form. > We are somewhat abusing notation by using `BODY...' to denote one or > more forms, but the convention is well-established and easy to grasp, > and there are no better alternatives. No better alternative? Did you read the thread? What about doing what the rest of the world does: (catch TAG FORM...)? Then if you really need to talk about the "body" for some reason, just say that the body is everything that follows TAG or it is the collection of forms or some such. No need to use "body" in the syntax description. (And no real need to even mention the body.) > I suggest doing everywhere what the `progn' documentation does, and > refer to BODY as "BODY forms". > > (progn BODY...) > Eval BODY forms sequentially and return value of last one. Same problem - see the start of the thread. What does "BODY forms" refer to: (1) a set of BODYs, each of which is a Lisp form, or (2) the set of Lisp forms that comprise a BODY. The term "BODY forms" is ambiguous. It can mean the forms that make up BODY or a list of forms each of which is a BODY. And what does `...' signify here: repetition of what it follows (i.e. repetition of BODY), as in the rest of the world, or a special Emacs-only syntax where `BODY...' is taken as a single token that is replaced by splicing in a list of Lisp forms? (progn FORM...) is much clearer. Users can parse it in the usual way: FORM is replaceable by a Lisp form, and `FORM...' simply means a repetition of Lisp forms. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 13:13:46 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 17:13:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY066-0005KK-4R for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:13:46 -0400 Received: from pantheon-po14.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.23]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY064-0005KE-2k for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:13:44 -0400 Received: from furry ([209.101.38.150]) (authenticated bits=0) by pantheon-po14.its.yale.edu (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id o6BHDicN022303 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:13:44 -0400 Received: by furry (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 402A6C011; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:13:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Chong Yidong To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:13:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:52:35 -0700") Message-ID: <87eifagcvr.fsf@stupidchicken.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-YaleITSMailFilter: Version 1.2c (attachment(s) not renamed) X-Spam-Score: -3.1 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Eli Zaretskii' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.2 (---) "Drew Adams" writes: >> The dots are important, because BODY normally implies one single form. >> We are somewhat abusing notation by using `BODY...' to denote one or >> more forms, but the convention is well-established and easy to grasp, >> and there are no better alternatives. > > No better alternative? Did you read the thread? What about doing > what the rest of the world does: (catch TAG FORM...)? Either BODY... or FORM... seems fine by me. It seems clearer to use BODY... and refer to "BODY forms" in the text, than to use FORM... and refer to "each FORM" in the text. But it is a marginal difference, and I don't think anyone gets confused in practice. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 13:25:15 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 17:25:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY0HD-0005Pj-On for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:25:15 -0400 Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY0HB-0005Pd-SK for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:25:14 -0400 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L5E00K00LKYOT00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:24:57 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.120.144]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L5E00I5ILPJFE60@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:24:56 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:22:55 +0300 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Andreas Schwab Message-id: <837hl2ue4w.fsf@gnu.org> References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <877hl2a0zs.fsf@gmail.com> <83lj9iv0dg.fsf@gnu.org> <8739vq9td1.fsf@gmail.com> <83iq4mup8h.fsf@gnu.org> <87y6di875p.fsf@gmail.com> <83eifaunic.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, stepnem@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) > From: Andreas Schwab > Cc: =?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw==?= , > 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, rms@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:26:03 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > ??? Whatever gave you the idea that BODY is only one form? > > BODY is a single form, BODY... is a sequence of forms. BODY is whatever follows TAG, till the closing parenthesis. That's why it is called "body". If we would like to say "form", we would do just that. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 13:28:01 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 17:28:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY0Js-0005Qz-Db for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:28:00 -0400 Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY0Jp-0005Qu-Kx for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:27:58 -0400 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L5E00F00LQPFX00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:27:07 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.120.144]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L5E00B68LT5QK90@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:27:06 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:25:05 +0300 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' In-reply-to: <231065DA146544BC8F04D09E33D823A5@us.oracle.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Drew Adams Message-id: <83630mue1a.fsf@gnu.org> References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <231065DA146544BC8F04D09E33D823A5@us.oracle.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: <6591@debbugs.gnu.org>, "'Richard Stallman'" > Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:33:34 -0700 > > IMO, readers will not be helped, and doc maintenance will be increased in the > long run, by doing what you suggest. OK, I give up. Someone else will have to do something with this bug report. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 13:58:28 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 17:58:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY0nM-0005dr-04 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:58:28 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY0nJ-0005dk-J3 for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:58:26 -0400 Received: from rcsinet13.oracle.com (rcsinet13.oracle.com [148.87.113.125]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6BHwOih030862 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:58:25 GMT Received: from acsmt355.oracle.com (acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155]) by rcsinet13.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6BGwMhX019762; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:58:23 GMT Received: from abhmt021.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 416447061278871096; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:58:16 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.175.255.126) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:58:16 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Chong Yidong'" References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org><5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com><83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org><83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org><3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com><83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org><38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com><83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com><526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> <87eifagcvr.fsf@stupidchicken.com> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:58:18 -0700 Message-ID: <8A949316C82741F4A96534DCD3EB7F58@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-reply-to: <87eifagcvr.fsf@stupidchicken.com> Thread-Index: AcshHHB5uE9Mkp0BTVal8jmhu70vPwAAfoSQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090204.4C3A0640.00D3:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -5.1 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Eli Zaretskii' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > >> The dots are important, because BODY normally implies one > >> single form. We are somewhat abusing notation by using > >> `BODY...' to denote one or more forms, but the convention > >> is well-established and easy to grasp, > >> and there are no better alternatives. > > > > No better alternative? Did you read the thread? What about doing > > what the rest of the world does: (catch TAG FORM...)? > > Either BODY... or FORM... seems fine by me. It seems clearer to use > BODY... and refer to "BODY forms" in the text, than to use FORM... and > refer to "each FORM" in the text. But it is a marginal difference, You are missing the point, but I won't beat a dead horse. I explained myself clearly, I think, for anyone who is willing and able to read. > and I don't think anyone gets confused in practice. If you read the thread, then you should not think that. _I_ got confused in practice, which is why I filed the bug report. I could not remember whether `catch' allows multiple sexps after the tag (i.e. has an implicit `progn'), so I consulted the doc, which I found misleading and confusing.[*] IOW, just to find out whether I needed to use an explicit `progn' after the tag in order to eval multiple sexps, I landed in a doc morass where `BODY...' does not in fact mean repetitions of BODY as it does in the rest of the known universe. For further clarity, I grepped the Emacs Lisp sources for examples, and I found _only_ uses of `catch' with a _single_ sexp. That added to my confusion. And when I finally figured that an implicit `progn' was used, the exclusive use of only one sexp in our source code suggested to me that perhaps some Emacs developers might also have been confused and so never tried using more than one sexp. [* I sometimes forget such things. One that I keep coming back to is `unwind-protect', which does _not_ protect multiple sexps (you need to use an explicit `progn' if you want to do that). Note, BTW, that in MacLisp the syntax was `(catch FORM TAG)', where _only one_ sexp was allowed. Note too that the MacLisp doc for `*catch' (which replaced `catch') shows its syntax as `(*catch tagspec . body)' - note the use of dot notation in a syntax description. http://maclisp.info/pitmanual/contro.html] From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 14:14:44 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 18:14:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY136-0005m9-93 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:14:44 -0400 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.9]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY134-0005m4-1k for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:14:42 -0400 Received: from frontend1.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.180]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A0651C15694; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:14:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from igel.home (ppp-88-217-108-81.dynamic.mnet-online.de [88.217.108.81]) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B06C1C00085; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:14:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: by igel.home (Postfix, from userid 501) id C8358CA297; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:14:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Schwab To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> X-Yow: Ask me the DIFFERENCE between PHIL SILVERS and ALEXANDER HAIG!! Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:14:41 +0200 In-Reply-To: <526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:52:35 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) "Drew Adams" writes: > No better alternative? Did you read the thread? What about doing what the rest > of the world does: (catch TAG FORM...)? Just because you spell the body form does not make it any different form. The ellipses is already unambigous. > What does "BODY forms" refer to: (1) a set of BODYs, each of which is a Lisp > form, or (2) the set of Lisp forms that comprise a BODY. The term "BODY forms" > is ambiguous. It can mean the forms that make up BODY or a list of forms each > of which is a BODY. This is _not_ a list, it is a repeated argument, not matter how you name the parameter. If it were a list it would be a single parameter. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 15:11:35 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 19:11:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY1w7-0006Ei-Da for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:11:35 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY1w5-0006Ea-TR for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:11:34 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6BJBWIS011755 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:11:33 GMT Received: from acsmt355.oracle.com (acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6BIf5LM012073; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:11:31 GMT Received: from abhmt014.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 416501611278875438; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:10:38 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.175.255.126) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:10:37 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Andreas Schwab'" References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org><5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com><83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org><83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org><3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com><83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org><38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com><83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com><526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:10:38 -0700 Message-ID: <18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-reply-to: Thread-Index: AcshJPE8WIzxTYyNSLa8HC/ST0EStgAANnJQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090203.4C3A1764.00DA:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > > No better alternative? Did you read the thread? What > > about doing what the rest of the world does: (catch TAG FORM...)? > > Just because you spell the body form does not make it any different > form. The ellipses is already unambigous. Please read the thread. Ellipsis commonly means that whatever it follows can be repeated. The body is not repeated. [Ditto for `*' (same as `...'). Common Lisp writes this as (catch TAG {FORM}*), which is clear.] This convention for `...', no matter how common, should also be stated in the docs, of course. I gave the Oracle docs as an example, and this convention is clearly spelled out there. > > What does "BODY forms" refer to: (1) a set of BODYs, each > > of which is a Lisp form, or (2) the set of Lisp forms that > > comprise a BODY. The term "BODY forms" is ambiguous. It > > can mean the forms that make up BODY or a list of forms each > > of which is a BODY. > > This is _not_ a list, What is not a list - what is "this"? > it is a repeated argument, Bzzzzt! No, sorry, but thanks for playing. What argument is repeated? BODY? Eli says no. What is repeated (repeatable) is the FORM that actually is an argument (and which does not appear in the syntax description). `BODY...' is not an argument (according to Eli). BODY is not an argument (according to Eli). BODY cannot be repeated (according to Eli). [Where "according to Eli" means my understanding of what he wrote.] > not matter how you name the parameter. What parameter? BODY is not an (ordinary) parameter. `BODY...' is not a parameter. BODY would be a &rest parameter, if we expressed it that way (which I suggested as one possibility). Other than that, it is _not_ an ordinary parameter. [MacLisp writes (*catch TAGSPEC . BODY), which is clear, even if not conventional outside the Lisp world.] But in (catch TAG BODY...) BODY is not a placeholder, and `...' does not mean repetition of BODY. Instead, `BODY...' is a single token standing for a list of forms that is spliced in to produce an implicit `progn'. So "it is a repeated argument, no matter how you name the parameter" is wrong on at least two counts. > If it were a list it would be a single parameter. See above. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 15:40:09 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 19:40:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY2Nl-0006S8-BL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:40:09 -0400 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY2Nj-0006Rq-DW for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:40:08 -0400 Received: from frontend1.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.180]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E50F11C001FE; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:40:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from igel.home (ppp-88-217-108-81.dynamic.mnet-online.de [88.217.108.81]) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBBF41C0013C; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:40:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: by igel.home (Postfix, from userid 501) id 927FECA297; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:40:07 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Schwab To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> <18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com> X-Yow: I'm thinking about DIGITAL READ-OUT systems and computer-generated IMAGE FORMATIONS.. Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:40:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: <18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:10:38 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) There are arguments that are passed to functions and special forms, and parameters that are placeholders in the definitions of them. You seem to be mixing them up a lot. A parameter either matches a single argument, or multiple ones (if followed by an ellipsis). It doesn't matter in any way how the parameter is called in this process. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 16:08:42 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 20:08:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY2pO-0006di-AU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:08:42 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY2pL-0006dd-Q9 for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:08:40 -0400 Received: from rcsinet13.oracle.com (rcsinet13.oracle.com [148.87.113.125]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6BK8csD023213 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:08:40 GMT Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by rcsinet13.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6BK8ba2030264; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:08:37 GMT Received: from abhmt006.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 395743961278878831; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:07:11 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.175.255.126) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:07:11 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Andreas Schwab'" References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org><5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com><83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org><83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org><3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com><83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org><38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com><83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com><526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com><18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:07:13 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-reply-to: Thread-Index: AcshMOCRbrR6v7BFR4a0XT3nefFdtwAAuciA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090202.4C3A24C6.01E6:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > A parameter either matches a single argument, or multiple > ones (if followed by an ellipsis). The latter is a &rest parameter, as I said. (And no one is confusing actual args with formal parameters. The fact that you state the contrary indicates that you have either not read or have not understood the thread.) And it's legitimate for Emacs to define the `...' syntax as indicating a &rest parameter, but _that convention needs to be STATED in the doc_. And it is not a great convention to choose, because it flies in the face of the common use of `...' in syntax descriptions (in the rest of the universe), in which `...' means repetition of what it follows. Which brings us back to the start of the thread. Emacs _can_ choose to exceptionally use `...' to mean a &rest parameter, but; 1. That unusual convention needs to be spelled out in the doc. 2. We will anyway confuse some readers who do not happen to read that explanation of this exceptional use of `...'. They will assume the usual interpretation of `...' as repetition. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 17:22:02 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 21:22:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY3yM-0007FW-In for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:22:02 -0400 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.9]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY3yK-0007FP-Fv for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:22:01 -0400 Received: from frontend1.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.180]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 251541C15806; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:22:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from igel.home (ppp-88-217-108-81.dynamic.mnet-online.de [88.217.108.81]) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8BBD1C00366; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:22:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: by igel.home (Postfix, from userid 501) id A89BCCA297; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:22:00 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Schwab To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> <18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com> X-Yow: I Know A Joke Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:22:00 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:07:13 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) "Drew Adams" writes: > which `...' means repetition of what it follows. Which fits perfectly. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 17:42:23 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 21:42:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY4I3-0007Nt-Ot for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:42:23 -0400 Received: from pantheon-po41.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.98]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY4I2-0007Nm-CC for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:42:22 -0400 Received: from furry (173-14-147-246-NewEngland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.14.147.246]) (authenticated bits=0) by pantheon-po41.its.yale.edu (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id o6BLgM27004342 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:42:23 -0400 Received: by furry (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 93A27C011; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:42:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Chong Yidong To: Andreas Schwab Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> <18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:42:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Andreas Schwab's message of "Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:22:00 +0200") Message-ID: <87r5j9wv9d.fsf@stupidchicken.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-YaleITSMailFilter: Version 1.2c (attachment(s) not renamed) X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Eli Zaretskii' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Richard Stallman' , Drew Adams X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) Andreas Schwab writes: > "Drew Adams" writes: > >> which `...' means repetition of what it follows. > > Which fits perfectly. Precisely; this is a nit we don't have to pick. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 11 17:45:41 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2010 21:45:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY4LE-0007S3-UO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:45:41 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OY4LD-0007Rx-Qw for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:45:40 -0400 Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com (rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6BLjaxX029770 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:45:37 GMT Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6BLVMlB019516; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:45:35 GMT Received: from abhmt012.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 416603751278884670; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:44:30 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.175.255.126) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:44:30 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Andreas Schwab'" References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org><5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com><83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org><83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org><3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com><83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org><38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com><83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com><526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com><18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:44:33 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-reply-to: Thread-Index: AcshPxwzLpf/F2IvSWGaopNEaylXfAAAYmyg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090201.4C3A3B80.0013:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > > which `...' means repetition of what it follows. > > Which fits perfectly. Repetition of what it follows. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What does `...' follow? BODY. Is BODY repeated? No. For Emacs, `...' does not mean repetition of what it follows (per what Eli has said). Instead, it means that what it follows is a &rest parameter. For Emacs, (X BODY...) means the same as (X &rest BODY) and (X . BODY). Which, as I said, is a legitimate, if unwise and unusual, choice. It just needs to be spelled out in the doc. Read the thread. I'm not going to repeat everything that has been said. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 12 04:43:51 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2010 08:43:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYEcA-0005nH-CS for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 04:43:50 -0400 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYEc8-0005nC-Qm for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 04:43:49 -0400 Received: from frontend1.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.180]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A151C000BC; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:43:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hase.home (ppp-88-217-123-220.dynamic.mnet-online.de [88.217.123.220]) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD401C00623; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:43:49 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Schwab To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> <18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com> X-Yow: Impudent.. Yet possessing a certain ALUMINUM SILICATE overbite....Needs REDDY-WHIP!! Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:43:49 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:44:33 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) "Drew Adams" writes: > Is BODY repeated? Yes. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 12 10:57:21 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2010 14:57:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYKRc-0000ey-KV for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:57:20 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYKRa-0000es-1c for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:57:18 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6CEvIEX027132 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:57:19 GMT Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6C682Wc004726; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:57:16 GMT Received: from abhmt020.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 418614581278946590; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 07:56:30 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/141.144.88.36) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 07:56:29 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Andreas Schwab'" References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org><5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com><83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org><83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org><3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com><83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org><38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com><83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com><526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com><18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 07:56:33 -0700 Message-ID: <5F77CAC8A1ED4CD19FFE4DA49C3BBF14@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acshnlx2WR4pPkYPQc+oienjGmj5mwAMc6dw In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090202.4C3B2D4D.025D:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -5.5 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > > Is BODY repeated? > > Yes. Then there are multiple BODYs, which Eli denies. And in that case, the accompanying text is incorrect and misleading, since it speaks as if there is only one body (which Eli says is in fact the case). You cannot have it both ways. If BODY represents a sexp that can be repeated, then there is not only one body that contains all of the sexps following TAG. If BODY represents all of the sexps that follow tag, spliced in, then BODY is not repeated. Read the thread - this has all been gone over. There are essentially two alternative solutions: 1. Use `...' to mean repetition of what it follows, as in the rest of the world. And change BODY to FORM, in order not to mislead. Then (catch TAG FORM...) says exactly what it means: zero or more FORMs follow TAG. 2. Introduce an Emacs-only interpretation of `...' which means that what it follows is a list to be spliced in. In this case, postfix `...' is equivalent to infix `.' (dot notation) and to a &rest parameter spec. #2 is what Eli says that `...' means in Emacs syntax descriptions. That is unusual, but a legitimate choice. Then (catch TAG BODY...) says that BODY is a list of somethings (the accompanying text would say forms) that are spliced in. So in (catch 'foo (a) (b) 42) the body is ((a) (b) 42). The body is an implicit `progn'. BODY is a &rest parameter for `catch'. If #2 is chosen, then the doc must explain the `...' notation somewhere. (It should explain that notation in any case, but especially in the case where it has an unconventional and unusual interpretation.) #1 is my preference, because it is easier on readers and easier in terms of doc maintenance. It is consistent with what one finds outside Emacs. What is a BUG is to use #2 with no explanation of the unusual syntax convention. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 12 11:26:09 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2010 15:26:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYKtV-0000ru-05 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:26:09 -0400 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYKtT-0000rp-5Z for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:26:07 -0400 Received: from frontend1.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.180]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E12BC1C0028D; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:26:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hase.home (ppp-88-217-123-220.dynamic.mnet-online.de [88.217.123.220]) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E4511C003E2; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:26:09 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Schwab To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> <18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com> <5F77CAC8A1ED4CD19FFE4DA49C3BBF14@us.oracle.com> X-Yow: Now I'm telling MISS PIGGY about MONEY MARKET FUNDS! Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:26:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: <5F77CAC8A1ED4CD19FFE4DA49C3BBF14@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Mon, 12 Jul 2010 07:56:33 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) There are multiple arguments all matched by the parameter. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 12 12:01:38 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2010 16:01:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYLRp-00017h-PG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:01:37 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYLRn-00017c-9O for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:01:35 -0400 Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com (rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6CG1ZBg003567 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:01:36 GMT Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6C9B9uO013912; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:01:33 GMT Received: from abhmt013.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 418884091278950487; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:01:27 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.194) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:01:26 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Andreas Schwab'" References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org><5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com><83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org><83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org><3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com><83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org><38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com><83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com><526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com><18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com><5F77CAC8A1ED4CD19FFE4DA49C3BBF14@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:01:25 -0700 Message-ID: <6687A7F5E2BC445C81F8BA96456112AA@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acsh1pBtpFf0kUlUQN+cBdFYMqMXxQAAyPkg In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090202.4C3B3C5F.010A:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > There are multiple arguments all matched by the parameter. Yes, so? It is a &rest parameter. How shall we convey that in the doc? That is the question. `...' typically signifies repetition of what it follows. If `...' follows BODY, then that (normally) means repetition of BODY - which is not what we mean in Emacs (there is only one body). Repetition of arguments, yes. And those arguments are sexps, not BODYs. A single &rest parameter BODY, yes. And that BODY is not a sexp - it is a list of sexps that is spliced in. It's not about actual args vs parameters. It's about describing the syntax unambiguously, whether you describe args or parameters. But you and Eli do not agree about `...' apparently. For him `...' does not signify repetition; it means that BODY is a &rest parameter - hence we can legitimately speak of only a single BODY. You cannot have it both ways. Either BODY is the list of what follows TAG, spliced in, or BODY represents a single sexp (Lisp form) and is repeatable. In the latter case, BODY should be called FORM or SEXP, because the word "body" suggests there is only one. In the former case, `...' coincides with common practice. In the latter choice it does not. In either case we need to spell out the syntax convention that we use, somewhere in the doc - that is missing AFAICT. In the latter choice it is especially important to do that, since our convention does not fit what readers see elsewhere. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 12 12:11:31 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2010 16:11:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYLbP-0001Bt-0L for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:11:31 -0400 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYLbM-0001Bk-Vy for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:11:29 -0400 Received: from frontend1.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.180]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D80A21C003AF; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:11:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from igel.home (ppp-88-217-123-220.dynamic.mnet-online.de [88.217.123.220]) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 994191C005AE; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:11:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: by igel.home (Postfix, from userid 501) id 38C40CA297; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:11:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Schwab To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' References: <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> <18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com> <5F77CAC8A1ED4CD19FFE4DA49C3BBF14@us.oracle.com> <6687A7F5E2BC445C81F8BA96456112AA@us.oracle.com> X-Yow: Fold, fold, FOLD!! FOLDING many items!! Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:11:31 +0200 In-Reply-To: <6687A7F5E2BC445C81F8BA96456112AA@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:01:25 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) BODY... or FORM... or SEXP... or whatever you call it matches the arguments that follow TAG. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 12 12:32:48 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2010 16:32:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYLw0-0001Ld-LF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:32:48 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYLvz-0001LW-Bd for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:32:47 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6CGWmnv025070 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:32:49 GMT Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6CCtI4C027489; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:32:47 GMT Received: from abhmt013.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 398118681278952306; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:31:46 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.194) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:31:45 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Andreas Schwab'" References: <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com><83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org><83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org><3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com><83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org><38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com><83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com><526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com><18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com><5F77CAC8A1ED4CD19FFE4DA49C3BBF14@us.oracle.com><6687A7F5E2BC445C81F8BA96456112AA@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:31:45 -0700 Message-ID: <044C8EC09B344720B4A728740D68C158@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acsh3Od2AXFCwtldTpudEcCX/Rf5/wAAfd2Q In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090209.4C3B43AF.0177:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > BODY... or FORM... or SEXP... or whatever you call it matches the > arguments that follow TAG. OK, that's also Eli's interpretation of `...'. In that case, BODY is _not_ repeated (repeatable). And in that case, FORM... or SEXP... would not be appropriate. The body is not a sexp. This interpretation of `...' is unconventional, atypical. Outside Emacs, `...' typically means repetition of what it follows - in this case BODY. It's fine for Emacs to have an unusual syntax convention, but it needs to be documented. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 12 12:36:43 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2010 16:36:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYLzn-0001NP-Aq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:36:43 -0400 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.9]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYLzk-0001NJ-VT for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:36:41 -0400 Received: from frontend1.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.180]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 035001C15A3F; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:36:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from igel.home (ppp-88-217-123-220.dynamic.mnet-online.de [88.217.123.220]) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1991C000EA; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:36:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: by igel.home (Postfix, from userid 501) id 92CA8CA297; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:36:43 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Schwab To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' References: <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> <18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com> <5F77CAC8A1ED4CD19FFE4DA49C3BBF14@us.oracle.com> <6687A7F5E2BC445C81F8BA96456112AA@us.oracle.com> <044C8EC09B344720B4A728740D68C158@us.oracle.com> X-Yow: I'm having a MID-WEEK CRISIS! Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:36:43 +0200 In-Reply-To: <044C8EC09B344720B4A728740D68C158@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:31:45 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) BODY... repeatedly matches all the arguments folling TAG. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 12 12:50:46 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2010 16:50:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYMDO-0001VQ-13 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:50:46 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYMDL-0001VH-SL for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:50:44 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6CGoinp008589 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:50:46 GMT Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6CGjuoY004332; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:50:43 GMT Received: from abhmt010.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 398177021278953409; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:50:09 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.194) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:50:09 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Andreas Schwab'" References: <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org><3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com><83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org><38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com><83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com><526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com><18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com><5F77CAC8A1ED4CD19FFE4DA49C3BBF14@us.oracle.com><6687A7F5E2BC445C81F8BA96456112AA@us.oracle.com><044C8EC09B344720B4A728740D68C158@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:50:09 -0700 Message-ID: <5369B12C17F84A6D8D1842CFB26585F6@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acsh4GwWB56tEVB9RyibU65Jc60KaQAAEfgw In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090209.4C3B47E3.01E8:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > BODY... repeatedly matches all the arguments folling TAG. Irrelevant - just word play. The point is that `...' typically means, when describing syntax, that whatever it follows can be repeated. That is, it is legitimate _syntax_ to repeat any number of whatevers. Whether `...' means zero or more or one or more is up for grabs. In the Oracle docs it means zero or more, so when one or more is meant you write `X X...', not `X...'. And as I mentioned, _if_ there is a need to specify the scope of a `...' then we will need to introduce a grouping construct. Braces are sometimes used for this (e.g. in both Oracle and Common Lisp doc - Oracle just uses a form of BNF). E.g. `X {A B}...' means X followed by zero or more occurrences of `A B' (A followed by B). We might have no need for such grouping - dunno. If we do, and _if_ we also sometimes use braces literally in the syntax (which I doubt), then we would also need a way to distinguish braces as syntax symbols (meta) from literal braces. I doubt that we need this either. I'm just mentioning that it is part of the machinery needed in general to specify repetition: just what is it that is repeatable. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 12 13:04:53 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2010 17:04:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYMR3-0001cd-Bj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:04:53 -0400 Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYMR0-0001cO-AH for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:04:51 -0400 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L5G00B00FCK5900@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:04:28 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.120.144]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L5G00GLRFFEIJI0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:04:27 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:02:27 +0300 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' In-reply-to: <6687A7F5E2BC445C81F8BA96456112AA@us.oracle.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Drew Adams Message-id: <83sk3oskf0.fsf@gnu.org> References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> <18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com> <5F77CAC8A1ED4CD19FFE4DA49C3BBF14@us.oracle.com> <6687A7F5E2BC445C81F8BA96456112AA@us.oracle.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, schwab@linux-m68k.org, rms@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: "'Chong Yidong'" , "'Eli Zaretskii'" , > <6591@debbugs.gnu.org>, "'Richard Stallman'" > Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:01:25 -0700 > > But you and Eli do not agree about `...' apparently. For him `...' does not > signify repetition That's not true. I simply wanted to remove the dots. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 12 14:14:58 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2010 18:14:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYNWs-0002A4-Iy for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:14:58 -0400 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYNWq-00029x-K2 for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:14:57 -0400 Received: from frontend1.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.180]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A29FC1C000A2; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:14:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from igel.home (ppp-88-217-123-220.dynamic.mnet-online.de [88.217.123.220]) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7679D1C000B3; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:14:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: by igel.home (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2E280CA297; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:14:59 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Schwab To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' References: <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> <18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com> <5F77CAC8A1ED4CD19FFE4DA49C3BBF14@us.oracle.com> <6687A7F5E2BC445C81F8BA96456112AA@us.oracle.com> <044C8EC09B344720B4A728740D68C158@us.oracle.com> <5369B12C17F84A6D8D1842CFB26585F6@us.oracle.com> X-Yow: I am covered with pure vegetable oil and I am writing a best seller! Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:14:59 +0200 In-Reply-To: <5369B12C17F84A6D8D1842CFB26585F6@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:50:09 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) "Drew Adams" writes: > The point is that `...' typically means, when describing syntax, that whatever > it follows can be repeated. Which is exactly what it does. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 12 14:31:12 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2010 18:31:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYNma-0002I6-Fm for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:31:12 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYNmY-0002I1-BX for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:31:10 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6CIVAVO019370 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:31:13 GMT Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6CHbljB014245; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:31:08 GMT Received: from abhmt021.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 398504811278959420; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:30:20 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.194) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:30:19 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> <18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com> <5F77CAC8A1ED4CD19FFE4DA49C3BBF14@us.oracle.com> <6687A7F5E2BC445C81F8BA96456112AA@us.oracle.com> <83sk3oskf0.fsf@gnu.org> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:30:19 -0700 Message-ID: <582A5C06CCBC4F00890D3E976A3E8167@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acsh5FwAXNvx2ri2QlSOVqZACAq+igAB3cLg In-Reply-To: <83sk3oskf0.fsf@gnu.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A0B0208.4C3B5F6D.0251:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, schwab@linux-m68k.org, rms@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > > But you and Eli do not agree about `...' apparently. For > > him `...' does not signify repetition > > That's not true. I simply wanted to remove the dots. Careful. "Signify repetition" of what? I was speaking of signifying repetition of _what it follows_. You made it clear that BODY is not repeated, that `...' does _not_ signify that what it follows (in this case BODY) is repeatable. You said, "Saying that there are multiple BODYs breaks the model". And that sounds good to me - there is only one body, we have agreed. Read carefully what I wrote. This is about whether postfix `...' means that _what it follows_ is repeatable, not whether BODY or `BODY...' might somehow signify that _something_ is repeatable - something _other than_ BODY itself. It's a _syntax_ description. `...' must apply to something (or to some things) that is (are) present in the same syntax description. If it does not apply to BODY, then what does it apply to? For most of the world, `X...' suggests that X can be repeated. You made it clear that `BODY...' does not mean that BODY itself can be repeated (there can be only one BODY). You have chosen to omit the _something_ that is repeatable from the syntax description and describe it only in the accompanying text, which says that BODY is one or more forms. Nothing wrong with that. But in that case `...' does not signify repetition of anything in the syntax description. It is the _accompanying text_ that says that BODY is a repetition of Lisp forms. The syntax description can only be said to indicate that if we explain that `X...' stands for a spliced-in list of Lisp forms. That (unusual) definition of `...' is missing from the doc. That's the choice: how to use `...' - what it should mean. I'm OK with your position that it should indicate a &rest parameter, IOW that it should be a postfix version of `.' (dotted pair operator). That is not the same as saying that it signifies repetition of what it follows (in the syntax description). But (a) that convention needs to be described somewhere and (b) it is not the typical convention for `...' in syntax descriptions, so we need to take care here and there to make it clear. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 12 14:36:57 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2010 18:36:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYNs9-0002LN-A7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:36:57 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYNs7-0002KO-04 for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:36:55 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6CIat7f005014 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:36:57 GMT Received: from acsmt355.oracle.com (acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6CIIGt2019486; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:36:54 GMT Received: from abhmt009.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 419376861278959740; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:35:40 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.194) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:35:39 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Andreas Schwab'" References: <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com><83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org><38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com><83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com><526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com><18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com><5F77CAC8A1ED4CD19FFE4DA49C3BBF14@us.oracle.com><6687A7F5E2BC445C81F8BA96456112AA@us.oracle.com><044C8EC09B344720B4A728740D68C158@us.oracle.com><5369B12C17F84A6D8D1842CFB26585F6@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:35:36 -0700 Message-ID: <42CE9FF359934111AC330D955D851053@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acsh7iZgmYz4NtULRe6WgphiJF/pOAAAi8Hg In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090209.4C3B60C7.01DB:SCFMA4539814, ss=1, pt=DBB_66871, fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > > The point is that `...' typically means, when describing > > syntax, that whatever it follows can be repeated. > > Which is exactly what it does. So your position is that BODY itself can be repeated. That contradicts Eli's position (and mine) that there is only one body. And in that case, the text that accompanies the syntax description does not fit, since it too speaks of "the body". A. If BODY can be repeated (your position), then there can be more than one BODY. B. If BODY cannot be repeated, so there is only one BODY, then `BODY...' does not signify repetition of BODY. So `...' does not signify that whatever it follows can be repeated. You've made your choice for A. Yet you want to claim that `...' still signifies repetition of what it follows, BODY. Think again. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 12 14:41:17 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2010 18:41:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYNwL-0002Nk-01 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:41:17 -0400 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.9]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYNwI-0002Nf-Jx for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:41:15 -0400 Received: from frontend1.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.180]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D43161C15B34; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:41:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from igel.home (ppp-88-217-123-220.dynamic.mnet-online.de [88.217.123.220]) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 773E21C0019E; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:41:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: by igel.home (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4FE3ECA297; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:41:17 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Schwab To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' References: <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com> <18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com> <5F77CAC8A1ED4CD19FFE4DA49C3BBF14@us.oracle.com> <6687A7F5E2BC445C81F8BA96456112AA@us.oracle.com> <044C8EC09B344720B4A728740D68C158@us.oracle.com> <5369B12C17F84A6D8D1842CFB26585F6@us.oracle.com> <42CE9FF359934111AC330D955D851053@us.oracle.com> X-Yow: I am NOT a nut.... Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:41:17 +0200 In-Reply-To: <42CE9FF359934111AC330D955D851053@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:35:36 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) There is no contradiction. The ellipsis means exactly what it is supposed to do. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 12 14:51:10 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2010 18:51:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYO5u-0002SV-IT for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:51:10 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYO5s-0002SP-5Z for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:51:08 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o6CIp9K6009821 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:51:11 GMT Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6CF3UGe013416; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:51:08 GMT Received: from abhmt019.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 398563921278960584; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:49:44 -0700 Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.194) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:49:44 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Andreas Schwab'" References: <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com><83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj9infkq.fsf@stupidchicken.com><526FD0D227F74C5EB38D8F5B903749E1@us.oracle.com><18EB402ADCE24992BF75AD91D64983FD@us.oracle.com><5F77CAC8A1ED4CD19FFE4DA49C3BBF14@us.oracle.com><6687A7F5E2BC445C81F8BA96456112AA@us.oracle.com><044C8EC09B344720B4A728740D68C158@us.oracle.com><5369B12C17F84A6D8D1842CFB26585F6@us.oracle.com><42CE9FF359934111AC330D955D851053@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:49:43 -0700 Message-ID: <4CCDB4E36A8C4773A713739F5B3203DD@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acsh8dLwJoES1kmLTLaWM5tFhet6jwAAMtvg In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090202.4C3B641D.0233:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , 6591@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Richard Stallman' X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > There is no contradiction. The ellipsis means exactly what it is > supposed to do. Ah, refuge behind vagueness. Yes, of course you're right. The ellipsis means exactly what it is supposed to mean. Carry on; tout va tres bien, Mme La Marquise. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Dec 08 10:47:01 2010 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Dec 2010 15:47:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PQMEP-00048u-2J for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:47:01 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PQMEL-00048i-RF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:46:58 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQMK6-0007VB-SF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:52:55 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]:41262) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQMK6-0007V6-OU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:52:54 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49249 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQMK5-0008RJ-GL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:52:54 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQMK4-0007UI-KX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:52:53 -0500 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:32678) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQMK4-0007Tt-FB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:52:52 -0500 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id oB8FqnrR004270 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:52:50 GMT Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id oB8BvItK005933; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:52:46 GMT Received: from abhmt010.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 856490751291823562; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:52:42 -0800 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.245.200) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:52:41 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Tim X'" , References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org><5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com><83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org><83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org><3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com><83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org><38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com><83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <877hl2a0zs.fsf@gmail.com><83lj9iv0dg.fsf@gnu.org> <8739vq9td1.fsf@gmail.com><83iq4mup8h.fsf@gnu.org> <87y6dhabrm.fsf@lion.rapttech.com.au> Subject: RE: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 07:52:40 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <87y6dhabrm.fsf@lion.rapttech.com.au> Thread-Index: AcuW6Qs4j3JtkMeAQGegpBsftmacmQABOguw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) > But I thought that was what the discussion was about i.e. > BODY == FORM..... > but BODY... is equal to multiple 'bodies' which is not > what is meant. > > I prefer BODY rather than BODY..., but think the CL FORM* is > the clearer when you want to indicate one or more forms. Caveat: I haven't been following this thread lately (guess I gave up), so I might be misunderstanding what is said here. If I understand correctly, then yes, that is what this bug report is about (I filed it). And yes, the Common Lisp doc is *much* clearer in this regard. For one thing, it actually _defines_ the syntax constructs it uses. But I don't think the point of this bug report will ever be successfully communicated to those who are in a position to fix this. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Dec 20 07:18:59 2010 Received: (at 6591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Dec 2010 12:19:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PUehf-0003LW-03 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 07:18:59 -0500 Received: from vm-emlprdomr-04.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.145]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PUehd-0003LJ-Tr for 6591@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 07:18:58 -0500 Received: from furball (bb116-14-228-227.singnet.com.sg [116.14.228.227]) (authenticated bits=0) by vm-emlprdomr-04.its.yale.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oBKCPNQ5030966 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 20 Dec 2010 07:25:26 -0500 Received: by furball (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2C11116247D; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:25:24 +0800 (SGT) From: Chong Yidong To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch' References: <831vbcbl7n.fsf@gnu.org> <5500EFEE9A854408ABF0FE400497FE2D@us.oracle.com> <83tyo7aiay.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxtz9zbn.fsf@gnu.org> <3ACAED77613643B7B2FC0207DDE11F11@us.oracle.com> <83y6djuyah.fsf@gnu.org> <38AC360676154EFF8DF9F35945B6EFAE@us.oracle.com> <83sk3qv922.fsf@gnu.org> <877hl2a0zs.fsf@gmail.com> <83lj9iv0dg.fsf@gnu.org> <8739vq9td1.fsf@gmail.com> <83iq4mup8h.fsf@gnu.org> <87y6dhabrm.fsf@lion.rapttech.com.au> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:25:23 +0800 In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Wed, 8 Dec 2010 07:52:40 -0800") Message-ID: <87mxo03a30.fsf@stupidchicken.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 130.132.50.145 X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6591 Cc: 6591@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) I've read the relevant docstring and Elisp entry, and estimate the chance of reader confusion at zero. Let's not pick this particular nit. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Dec 20 07:19:11 2010 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Dec 2010 12:19:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PUehq-0003MB-8l for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 07:19:10 -0500 Received: from vm-emlprdomr-03.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.144]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PUeho-0003M0-Si for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 07:19:09 -0500 Received: from furball (bb116-14-228-227.singnet.com.sg [116.14.228.227]) (authenticated bits=0) by vm-emlprdomr-03.its.yale.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oBKCPZ66009397 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 07:25:37 -0500 Received: by furball (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E8D7816247D; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:25:35 +0800 (SGT) From: Chong Yidong To: control@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: close 6591 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:25:35 +0800 Message-ID: <87aak0d41s.fsf@stupidchicken.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 130.132.50.144 X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) close 6591 thanks From unknown Sun Jun 22 03:55:35 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:24:04 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator