bug#65344: 28.2; Unable to Edebug cl-flet form which uses argument destructuring

[Michael Heerdegen]

Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com> writes:

> (debug ((&rest [&or (&define [&name symbolp "@cl-flet@"]
>                       [&name [] gensym] ;Make it unique!
>                       cl-lambda-list
>                       cl-declarations-or-string
>                       [&optional ("interactive" interactive)]
>                       def-body)
>                   (&define [&name symbolp "@cl-flet@"]
>                       [&name [] gensym] ;Make it unique!
>                       def-body)])

> The second &define is for the (FN EXPR) bindings.  It comes after the
> &define for "normal" function bindings because because, for some
> reason, apparently the second &define also matches the other case.

That's because you use 'def-body' which matches any number of body
expressions.  I think this is not correct: we are expecting a single
form.

Apart from that: yes, something like this... I did not yet understand
the &name magic.

And i wonder whether we should apply the distributive law and factor out
the first few identical specs inside the &or.

Michael.