GNU bug report logs - #6591
24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch'

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 15:53:01 UTC

Severity: minor

Found in version 24.0.50

Done: Chong Yidong <cyd <at> stupidchicken.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #35 received at 6591 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 6591 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch'
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:15:01 +0300
> From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
> Cc: <6591 <at> 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?




This bug report was last modified 14 years and 159 days ago.

Previous Next


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