bug#71120: 29.3; buglet in cl-loop

[Andrea Corallo]

Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:

> Philippe Schnoebelen <phs@lmf.cnrs.fr> writes:
>
>> When I need a list of 100 random dice throws I write
>>
>>      (cl-loop for i from 1 to 100 collect (random 6))
>>
>> It compiles just fine.
>>
>> If instead I use
>>
>>      (cl-loop for _i from 1 to 100 collect (random 6))
>>
>> then I get a compilation warning:
>>
>>      foo.el:1:18: Warning: variable ‘_i’ not left unused
>>
>> It should be the other way around.
>
> The issue here is that the warning describes an issue in the output, in
> the latter case
>
>   (let* ((_i 1) (--cl-var-- nil))
>     (while (<= _i 100)
>       (setq --cl-var-- (cons (random 6) --cl-var--))
>       (setq _i (+ _i 1)))
>     (nreverse --cl-var--))
>
> As you see, _i is both evaluated in (+ _i 1) and updated.
>
> Here you have a minimal working example of the warning:
>
>   (byte-compile (lambda () (let ((_x 3)) _x)))
>
>   ;; Warning: variable ‘_x’ not left unused
>
> My guess is that fixing this would require cl-loop to notice that the
> counter is prefixed with a "_" and then use some other variable, but
> that might lead to issues with existing code.  Perhaps this
> transformation might be safe in that case:
>
>   (let* ((<fresh-variable> 1) (--cl-var-- nil))
>     (while (<= <fresh-variable> 100)
>       (let ((_i <fresh-variable>))
>       (setq --cl-var-- (cons (random 6) --cl-var--))
>       (setq <fresh-variable> (+ <fresh-variable> 1))))
>     (nreverse --cl-var--))
>
> I have added Mattias and Stefan to the CCs, as they'll probably have
> more qualified comments to add.

This is the same transformation that came to my mind reading the orginal
report, I think it should be safe.

BTW Philippe, you can workaround the bug with:

(cl-loop repeat 100 collect (random 6))

Bests

  Andrea