[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#69533: 30.0.50; Wrong byte compilation of a certain apply syntax
From: |
Drew Adams |
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.
- bug#69533: 30.0.50; Wrong byte compilation of a certain apply syntax, Michael Heerdegen, 2024/03/03
- bug#69533: 30.0.50; Wrong byte compilation of a certain apply syntax, Drew Adams, 2024/03/03
- bug#69533: 30.0.50; Wrong byte compilation of a certain apply syntax, Michael Heerdegen, 2024/03/04
- bug#69533: 30.0.50; Wrong byte compilation of a certain apply syntax, Andreas Schwab, 2024/03/04
- bug#69533: 30.0.50; Wrong byte compilation of a certain apply syntax, Basil L. Contovounesios, 2024/03/04
- bug#69533: 30.0.50; Wrong byte compilation of a certain apply syntax, Mattias EngdegÄrd, 2024/03/04
- bug#69533: 30.0.50; Wrong byte compilation of a certain apply syntax, Mattias EngdegÄrd, 2024/03/04