GNU bug report logs - #72344
[PATCH] Add a version of cl-once-only which handles lists of forms

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Thuna <thuna.cing <at> gmail.com>

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 21:18:02 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: patch

Done: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #53 received at 72344 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Thuna <thuna.cing <at> gmail.com>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 72344 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
Subject: RE: [External] : Re: bug#72344: [PATCH] Add a version of
 cl-once-only which handles lists of forms
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 00:18:39 +0200
>> If Drew wants to start a new conversation to move `cl-once-only' (and
>> also this) out of cl-lib we can also just go with any name now and then
>> finalize it afterwards, though of all the names the one I favor is still
>> `cl-once-only-multiple' above all others (sans `cl-once-only*' which is
>> not an option - unless if you changed your mind about it?).
>
> I've said all I have to say on the matter.  I seem to be a minority of
> one, and won't bother starting any new thread about it.

I don't know what the overall opinion is, but I do not necessarily
disagree with you that cl-lib should be for (and only for) emulating
Common Lisp.  While I do not know the scope and extent of the changes
you want to make, I support moving with-gensyms and once-only (and
consequently this) out of cl-lib.  However I simply do not have the
energy to start (more) arguments and try to convince people to make this
change.

> I have no objection to using prefix cl-- (internal prefix) for utility
> functions & macros in the library - i.e., for plumbing needed to
> support the actual emulation.

When talking about this patch in a vacuum, I am vehemently opposed to
using the `cl--' prefix - this macro is a public-facing one, and making
it internal is a guaranteed way to make sure no one uses it.  It also
does not make sense that this macro (and only this macro) should be left
out of cl-lib, since this is a near-identical version of `cl-once-only'
with minor changes.




This bug report was last modified 95 days ago.

Previous Next


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