GNU bug report logs - #69533
30.0.50; Wrong byte compilation of a certain apply syntax

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>

Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 01:52:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Found in version 30.0.50

Done: Mattias EngdegÄrd <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
Cc: "69533 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <69533 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>, "rms <at> gnu.org" <rms <at> gnu.org>
Subject: bug#69533: 30.0.50; Wrong byte compilation of a certain apply syntax
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:52:20 +0000
> Drew Adams writes:
> 
> > FWIW, I'm very surprised to find this "feature".
> > That it's documented suggests it was intended.
> > But I don't know why it would be.  Does anyone?
> 
> Bug#40968 I think.

Yes, thanks.  I'd forgotten about that,
and that I'd contributed to the thread.

I agree with what I said there ;-),
which is not always the case. ;-)

In particular this:

  Pip>> I think there's consensus, then. 

  me> FTR, FWIW: Not a consensus that includes me.

  me> I'm in favor of making an incompatible
  me> change, to align Emacs with Common Lisp's
  me> more reasonable behavior.

I might have added every other Lisp; it's
not just Common Lisp, AFAIK.

No one has given a good reason _why_ Elisp
ever had this one-off (no other Lisp has
it) behavior, AFAICS.

There's no reason given in that thread.
The thread just concentrates on "fixing"
the odd-ball "special" case.  And the fix
was to mention that case in the doc.

Really too bad.




This bug report was last modified 1 year and 162 days ago.

Previous Next


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