[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#65797: 29.0.92; func-arity should not return (0 . many) with apply-p
|
From: |
Joseph Turner |
|
Subject: |
bug#65797: 29.0.92; func-arity should not return (0 . many) with apply-partially |
|
Date: |
Fri, 08 Sep 2023 09:37:18 -0700 |
On September 8, 2023 8:52:25 AM PDT, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
wrote:
>>> This isn't backwards compatible, is it?
>> Neither is what you propose, AFAIU. We are in effect changing a
>> public API in incompatible ways.
>
>Yup, AFAICT there's no way to implement the Texinfo-documented
>behavior reliably.
>
>So some backward-incompatibility is inevitable, unless we decide to
>stick to the current code to be "bug compatible"
IIUC, the patch breaks code that passes a CONDITION predicate that accepts only
one argument and also passes an ARG argument.
Is there another case which would break?
- bug#65797: 29.0.92; func-arity should not return (0 . many) with apply-partially, Joseph Turner, 2023/09/07
- bug#65797: 29.0.92; func-arity should not return (0 . many) with apply-partially, Mattias Engdegård, 2023/09/07
- bug#65797: 29.0.92; func-arity should not return (0 . many) with apply-partially, Stefan Monnier, 2023/09/07
- bug#65797: 29.0.92; func-arity should not return (0 . many) with apply-partially, Stefan Monnier, 2023/09/07
- bug#65797: 29.0.92; func-arity should not return (0 . many) with apply-partially, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/08
- bug#65797: 29.0.92; func-arity should not return (0 . many) with apply-partially, Joseph Turner, 2023/09/11
- bug#65797: 29.0.92; func-arity should not return (0 . many) with apply-partially, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/11
- bug#65797: 29.0.92; func-arity should not return (0 . many) with apply-partially, Stefan Monnier, 2023/09/12
bug#65797: `buffer-match-p` should not use `func-arity`, Philip Kaludercic, 2023/09/08