GNU bug report logs -
#69108
false-positive warning "variable ‘_’ not left unused" in if-let* and if-let
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Your message dated Sun, 25 Feb 2024 09:42:07 +0200
with message-id <86a5npxa5s.fsf <at> gnu.org>
and subject line Re: bug#69108: false-positive warning "variable ‘_’ not left unused" in if-let* and if-let
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #69108,
regarding false-positive warning "variable ‘_’ not left unused" in if-let* and if-let
to be marked as done.
(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)
--
69108: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=69108
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems
[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
I've been writing an answer for a question on emacs.stackexchange¹ and to avoid
nested `if` and `let` clauses I used a `if-let*`, and result of one of the checks I
assigned to a `_` variable, because the variable would be left unused, it's only the
check being non-nil that mattered.
But when byte-compiled that triggered a:
test.el:6:9: Warning: variable ‘_’ not left unused
…which is untrue, because it is unused.
The problem is present in both `if-let` and `if-let*`
# Steps to reproduce
1. Create test.el with the following code:
;;; -*- lexical-binding: t -*-
(if-let*
((_ nil))
(print "then clause")
(print "else clause"))
2. M-x byte-compile test.el
## Expected
It byte-compiles with no warnings
## Actual
It compiles with a warning:
test.el:3:7: Warning: variable ‘_’ not left unused
# Additional information
Emacs version: commit d4d5830f8a0 built two weeks ago from master.
1: https://emacs.stackexchange.com/questions/80351/delete-prettify-symbol
[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]
> From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
> Cc: 69108 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Hi-Angel <at> yandex.ru
> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2024 02:54:04 +0100
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
> > > [...] repeating a test. Is this what you prefer?
> >
> > Yes, I think so. And you could perhaps avoid repetition of
> > (cdr binding) by saving the result of (null (cdr binding)) in
> > a local variable.
>
> I went with a separate `cond' branch added instead, I think this is even
> simpler. Ok?
Yes, thanks.
> > > {My unsuccessful doc tweaks}
> >
> > [...] I'd prefer to separate it.
>
> Done. Feel free to tune it to your likes. Or send me an "ok", then
> I'll just commit this version.
I installed them both, thanks.
Closing the bug.
This bug report was last modified 1 year and 148 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.