GNU bug report logs - #71120
29.3; buglet in cl-loop

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 71120 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 71120 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 10:43:36 +0200

When I need a list of 100 random dice throws I write

	(cl-loop for i from 1 to 100 collect (random 6))

It compiles just fine.

If instead I use

	(cl-loop for _i from 1 to 100 collect (random 6))

then I get a compilation warning:

	foo.el:1:18: Warning: variable ‘_i’ not left unused

It should be the other way around.

The variable 'i' is unused in the first form and that deserves a warning 
at compile time. Otherwise the compiler will not help me catch the typo in

	(cl-loop for i from 0 to 10 do
	   (cl-loop for j from 0 to 10 do
	      (foo j j))) ;; <<<=== typo, I meant (foo i j)


--ph.schnoebelen, happy and thankful GNU Emacs user since 1983 (Thanks 
to all involved!!)

Message #8 received at 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
To: Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
Cc: 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 20:47:56 +0000

Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr> writes:

> When I need a list of 100 random dice throws I write
>
> 	(cl-loop for i from 1 to 100 collect (random 6))
>
> It compiles just fine.
>
> If instead I use
>
> 	(cl-loop for _i from 1 to 100 collect (random 6))
>
> then I get a compilation warning:
>
> 	foo.el:1:18: Warning: variable ‘_i’ not left unused
>
> It should be the other way around.

The issue here is that the warning describes an issue in the output, in
the latter case

  (let* ((_i 1) (--cl-var-- nil))
    (while (<= _i 100)
      (setq --cl-var-- (cons (random 6) --cl-var--))
      (setq _i (+ _i 1)))
    (nreverse --cl-var--))

As you see, _i is both evaluated in (+ _i 1) and updated.

Here you have a minimal working example of the warning:

  (byte-compile (lambda () (let ((_x 3)) _x)))

  ;; Warning: variable ‘_x’ not left unused

My guess is that fixing this would require cl-loop to notice that the
counter is prefixed with a "_" and then use some other variable, but
that might lead to issues with existing code.  Perhaps this
transformation might be safe in that case:

  (let* ((<fresh-variable> 1) (--cl-var-- nil))
    (while (<= <fresh-variable> 100)
      (let ((_i <fresh-variable>))
	(setq --cl-var-- (cons (random 6) --cl-var--))
	(setq <fresh-variable> (+ <fresh-variable> 1))))
    (nreverse --cl-var--))

I have added Mattias and Stefan to the CCs, as they'll probably have
more qualified comments to add.

>
> The variable 'i' is unused in the first form and that deserves a
> warning at compile time. Otherwise the compiler will not help me catch
> the typo in
>
> 	(cl-loop for i from 0 to 10 do
> 	   (cl-loop for j from 0 to 10 do
> 	      (foo j j))) ;; <<<=== typo, I meant (foo i j)
>
>
> --ph.schnoebelen, happy and thankful GNU Emacs user since 1983 (Thanks
>   to all involved!!)
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
	Philip Kaludercic on peregrine

Message #11 received at 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
To: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
Cc: 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 17:33:49 -0400

Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:

> Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr> writes:
>
>> When I need a list of 100 random dice throws I write
>>
>> 	(cl-loop for i from 1 to 100 collect (random 6))
>>
>> It compiles just fine.
>>
>> If instead I use
>>
>> 	(cl-loop for _i from 1 to 100 collect (random 6))
>>
>> then I get a compilation warning:
>>
>> 	foo.el:1:18: Warning: variable ‘_i’ not left unused
>>
>> It should be the other way around.
>
> The issue here is that the warning describes an issue in the output, in
> the latter case
>
>   (let* ((_i 1) (--cl-var-- nil))
>     (while (<= _i 100)
>       (setq --cl-var-- (cons (random 6) --cl-var--))
>       (setq _i (+ _i 1)))
>     (nreverse --cl-var--))
>
> As you see, _i is both evaluated in (+ _i 1) and updated.
>
> Here you have a minimal working example of the warning:
>
>   (byte-compile (lambda () (let ((_x 3)) _x)))
>
>   ;; Warning: variable ‘_x’ not left unused
>
> My guess is that fixing this would require cl-loop to notice that the
> counter is prefixed with a "_" and then use some other variable, but
> that might lead to issues with existing code.  Perhaps this
> transformation might be safe in that case:
>
>   (let* ((<fresh-variable> 1) (--cl-var-- nil))
>     (while (<= <fresh-variable> 100)
>       (let ((_i <fresh-variable>))
> 	(setq --cl-var-- (cons (random 6) --cl-var--))
> 	(setq <fresh-variable> (+ <fresh-variable> 1))))
>     (nreverse --cl-var--))
>
> I have added Mattias and Stefan to the CCs, as they'll probably have
> more qualified comments to add.

This is the same transformation that came to my mind reading the orginal
report, I think it should be safe.

BTW Philippe, you can workaround the bug with:

(cl-loop repeat 100 collect (random 6))

Bests

  Andrea

Message #14 received at 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
To: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
Cc: 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 17:49:10 -0400

Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>
>> Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr> writes:
>>
>>> When I need a list of 100 random dice throws I write
>>>
>>> 	(cl-loop for i from 1 to 100 collect (random 6))
>>>
>>> It compiles just fine.
>>>
>>> If instead I use
>>>
>>> 	(cl-loop for _i from 1 to 100 collect (random 6))
>>>
>>> then I get a compilation warning:
>>>
>>> 	foo.el:1:18: Warning: variable ‘_i’ not left unused
>>>
>>> It should be the other way around.
>>
>> The issue here is that the warning describes an issue in the output, in
>> the latter case
>>
>>   (let* ((_i 1) (--cl-var-- nil))
>>     (while (<= _i 100)
>>       (setq --cl-var-- (cons (random 6) --cl-var--))
>>       (setq _i (+ _i 1)))
>>     (nreverse --cl-var--))
>>
>> As you see, _i is both evaluated in (+ _i 1) and updated.
>>
>> Here you have a minimal working example of the warning:
>>
>>   (byte-compile (lambda () (let ((_x 3)) _x)))
>>
>>   ;; Warning: variable ‘_x’ not left unused
>>
>> My guess is that fixing this would require cl-loop to notice that the
>> counter is prefixed with a "_" and then use some other variable, but
>> that might lead to issues with existing code.  Perhaps this
>> transformation might be safe in that case:
>>
>>   (let* ((<fresh-variable> 1) (--cl-var-- nil))
>>     (while (<= <fresh-variable> 100)
>>       (let ((_i <fresh-variable>))
>> 	(setq --cl-var-- (cons (random 6) --cl-var--))
>> 	(setq <fresh-variable> (+ <fresh-variable> 1))))
>>     (nreverse --cl-var--))
>>
>> I have added Mattias and Stefan to the CCs, as they'll probably have
>> more qualified comments to add.
>
> This is the same transformation that came to my mind reading the orginal
> report, I think it should be safe.

As a datapoint, SBCL does expands this with inside a

(declare (ignore i))

Unfortuantelly we don't support it :/ and our 'ignore' doesn't work here
as goes in the opposite direction :(

  Andrea

Message #17 received at 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Mattias Engdegård
 <mattiase <at> acm.org>, Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>,
 Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 21:45:26 -0400

>>   (let* ((<fresh-variable> 1) (--cl-var-- nil))
>>     (while (<= <fresh-variable> 100)
>>       (let ((_i <fresh-variable>))
>> 	(setq --cl-var-- (cons (random 6) --cl-var--))
>> 	(setq <fresh-variable> (+ <fresh-variable> 1))))
>>     (nreverse --cl-var--))
>>
>> I have added Mattias and Stefan to the CCs, as they'll probably have
>> more qualified comments to add.

Not really: There's a similar problem with `cl-destructuring-bind` and
similarly, when I started to look at the corresponding code I quickly
gave up.

At least for `cl-destructuring-bind` I think I understand the intended
behavior well enough that I might be able to implement code which
behaves as we want (tho I don't know how to *modify* the existing code
to reach that stage).

In the case of `cl-loop` the intended behavior is much too complex for
my poor head, so I don't think I'd be able to decide whether it does the
right thing for all cases.


        Stefan

Message #20 received at 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
Cc: 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 11:25:46 +0200

Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr> writes:

> When I need a list of 100 random dice throws I write
> 
> 	(cl-loop for i from 1 to 100 collect (random 6))
> 
> It compiles just fine.
> 
> If instead I use
> 
> 	(cl-loop for _i from 1 to 100 collect (random 6))
> 
> then I get a compilation warning:
> 
> 	foo.el:1:18: Warning: variable ‘_i’ not left unused

Quite unfair that you have no a priori way of knowing whether your variable name is actually the one that `cl-loop` uses for iteration or just one bound for each iteration (as in `dotimes`).

A sloppy reading of Common Lisp's `loop` spec, which we don't need to follow since this isn't CL but we'd be fools to deviate too far from without a good reason, didn't tell me anything.

In particular nothing about whether the user is allowed to alter the variable in order to change the iteration. For example, what should

  (cl-loop for i from 1 to 100
           when (= i 3) do (setq i 98)
           collect i)

return? Perhaps better not touch that.

Thus I don't think there's anything we really need to do here, do you?

Message #23 received at 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 09:14:24 -0400

Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr> writes:
>
>> When I need a list of 100 random dice throws I write
>> 
>> 	(cl-loop for i from 1 to 100 collect (random 6))
>> 
>> It compiles just fine.
>> 
>> If instead I use
>> 
>> 	(cl-loop for _i from 1 to 100 collect (random 6))
>> 
>> then I get a compilation warning:
>> 
>> 	foo.el:1:18: Warning: variable ‘_i’ not left unused
>
> Quite unfair that you have no a priori way of knowing whether your variable name is actually the one that `cl-loop` uses for iteration or just one bound for each iteration (as in `dotimes`).
>
> A sloppy reading of Common Lisp's `loop` spec, which we don't need to follow since this isn't CL but we'd be fools to deviate too far from without a good reason, didn't tell me anything.
>
> In particular nothing about whether the user is allowed to alter the variable in order to change the iteration. For example, what should
>
>   (cl-loop for i from 1 to 100
>            when (= i 3) do (setq i 98)
>            collect i)
>
> return? Perhaps better not touch that.

If the spec doesn't say anything usually means it's left to the
implementors (IOW it's UB).

> Thus I don't think there's anything we really need to do here, do you?

I, for one, think the nicest option is the one SBCL (and I guess other
CL implementations) are using, that is to have 'i' 'ignorable', the
problem is that we don't support this at language level.

  Andrea

Message #26 received at 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>,
 Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>, Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 10:51:19 -0400

>>> 	(cl-loop for i from 1 to 100 collect (random 6))
[...]
>>> 	(cl-loop for _i from 1 to 100 collect (random 6))
>> Thus I don't think there's anything we really need to do here, do you?
> I, for one, think the nicest option is the one SBCL (and I guess other
> CL implementations) are using, that is to have 'i' 'ignorable', the
> problem is that we don't support this at language level.

I don't quite see how "ignorable" comes into play here.

In the first case above, the var is "not used", has a "normal"
name, and we get no warning.  Does SBCL do the same or does it emit
a warning?

In the second case, the var is "not used", has an "I'm not used" name,
and we do get a warning.  Does SBCL even support "I'm not used" names?


        Stefan

Message #29 received at 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>,
 Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>, Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 11:41:50 -0400

Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>>>> 	(cl-loop for i from 1 to 100 collect (random 6))
> [...]
>>>> 	(cl-loop for _i from 1 to 100 collect (random 6))
>>> Thus I don't think there's anything we really need to do here, do you?
>> I, for one, think the nicest option is the one SBCL (and I guess other
>> CL implementations) are using, that is to have 'i' 'ignorable', the
>> problem is that we don't support this at language level.
>
> I don't quite see how "ignorable" comes into play here.
>
> In the first case above, the var is "not used", has a "normal"
> name, and we get no warning.  Does SBCL do the same or does it emit
> a warning?

It does not emit a warning

> In the second case, the var is "not used", has an "I'm not used" name,
> and we do get a warning.  Does SBCL even support "I'm not used" names?

It does not.

In Elisp a variable can be either normal or _* (not used).

In CL a variable other than normal can be 'ignore' which correspond to
our _* or 'ignorable'.  This last AFAIU stands for might or might not be
used but don't emit warnings.

It's no big deal but I think 'ignorable' is useful for macros expanding
code with variables that might or not be used by the user like in this.

  Andrea

Message #32 received at 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 17:45:22 +0200

30 maj 2024 kl. 17.41 skrev Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>:

> In CL a variable other than normal can be 'ignore' which correspond to
> our _* or 'ignorable'.  This last AFAIU stands for might or might not be
> used but don't emit warnings.

Like (ignore x) in elisp?

Message #35 received at 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 13:15:42 -0400

Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 30 maj 2024 kl. 17.41 skrev Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>:
>
>> In CL a variable other than normal can be 'ignore' which correspond to
>> our _* or 'ignorable'.  This last AFAIU stands for might or might not be
>> used but don't emit warnings.
>
> Like (ignore x) in elisp?

Yes, but with the caveat that (ignore _i) still generates a warning.

Message #38 received at 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 19:18:36 +0200

30 maj 2024 kl. 19.15 skrev Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>:

>> Like (ignore x) in elisp?
> 
> Yes, but with the caveat that (ignore _i) still generates a warning.

That could be fixed; it likely involves some other reforms that we want to do anyway (and being prepared behind the scenes). Will take a while, though.

Message #41 received at 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 13:42:45 -0400

Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 30 maj 2024 kl. 19.15 skrev Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>:
>
>>> Like (ignore x) in elisp?
>> 
>> Yes, but with the caveat that (ignore _i) still generates a warning.
>
> That could be fixed;

Cool

> it likely involves some other reforms that we want to do anyway (and
> being prepared behind the scenes). Will take a while, though.

Would you like to share with us what's cookin'? 😀

  Andrea

Message #44 received at 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com>
To: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>,
 Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>, Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 06:30:26 +0200

Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 30 maj 2024 kl. 19.15 skrev Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>:
>>
>>>> Like (ignore x) in elisp?
>>> 
>>> Yes, but with the caveat that (ignore _i) still generates a warning.
>>
>> That could be fixed;
>
> Cool
>
>> it likely involves some other reforms that we want to do anyway (and
>> being prepared behind the scenes). Will take a while, though.
>
> Would you like to share with us what's cookin'? 😀

Good question. Who is "we" and why is it not on emacs-devel?

Message #47 received at 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 10:29:46 +0200

30 maj 2024 kl. 19.42 skrev Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>:

>> That could be fixed;
> 
> Cool

We could probably do it in cconv now but it would be a hack and I would prefer not to.

Message #50 received at 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 11:24:13 -0400

Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 30 maj 2024 kl. 19.42 skrev Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>:
>
>>> That could be fixed;
>> 
>> Cool
>
> We could probably do it in cconv now but it would be a hack and I would prefer not to.

Okay so I guess we can keep this bug open as a reminder for this?

Thanks

  Andrea

Message #53 received at 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 17:32:22 +0200

3 juni 2024 kl. 17.24 skrev Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>:

> Okay so I guess we can keep this bug open as a reminder for this?

Thank you, but there's no need for that as far as I'm concerned.

Message #56 received at 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 11:42:07 -0400

Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 3 juni 2024 kl. 17.24 skrev Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>:
>
>> Okay so I guess we can keep this bug open as a reminder for this?
>
> Thank you, but there's no need for that as far as I'm concerned.

Do you prefer a dedicated bug for 'ignore'?

Message #59 received at 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 71120 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:24:37 +0200

3 juni 2024 kl. 17.42 skrev Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>:

> Do you prefer a dedicated bug for 'ignore'?

I can keep track of it for myself but feel free to add a bug if you want to make sure it isn't forgotten.

Message #64 received at 71120-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 71120-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>,
 Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 Philippe Schnoebelen <phs <at> lmf.cnrs.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 18:20:08 -0800

Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 3 juni 2024 kl. 17.24 skrev Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>:
>
>> Okay so I guess we can keep this bug open as a reminder for this?
>
> Thank you, but there's no need for that as far as I'm concerned.

I'm therefore closing this bug report.

Previous Next

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