[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#31052: 26.0.91; Improve documentation of inline-letevals
From: |
Lars Ingebrigtsen |
Subject: |
bug#31052: 26.0.91; Improve documentation of inline-letevals |
Date: |
Sat, 22 Aug 2020 17:59:47 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> The main question the existing documentation doesn't answer is what the
>> purpose of inline-letevals is and why it should be used instead of 'let'.
>
> OK, but in that case we need only add a single sentence:
>
> This provides a convenient way to ensure that the arguments to an
> inlined function are evaluated exactly once, as well as to create
> local variables.
>
>> The misleading part of the existing documentation is that it describes
>> inline-letevals as similar to 'let' without mentioning that it does a
>> completely different thing to symbols in the binding list.
>
> The only part of your change that I perceive as related to this is the
> following sentence:
>
> When an element of @var{bindings} is just a symbol @var{var}, the
> result of evaluating @var{var} is re-bound to @var{var}.
I agree with Gemini that the description of inline-letevals was
confusing, and I also agree with Eli that the proposed patch was also
confusing. :-)
So I've taken Eli's suggestion, and the sentence above and added them to
the manual, as well as adding a bit more text to explain what it's
doing, and where it differs from `let', and pushed to Emacs 28.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- bug#31052: 26.0.91; Improve documentation of inline-letevals,
Lars Ingebrigtsen <=