Re: (declare (debug 0))

[Stephen Gildea]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

>   I must say I [had] no idea that 0 was supposed to be treated specially.
>   
>   I would have written (&rest sexp) instead, tho more likely I would have
>   written nothing at all and relies on the default behavior of Edebug....

If even you didn't know about (debug 0), it sounds like I should update
the manual to recommend (debug nil) instead.

I do like the idea of offering (continuing to offer) a simple shorthand
that says "do not instrument args", even though that is the default and
is rarely used in current code.  Adding an explicit declaration saves
later readers/maintainers of a macro definition from having to figure
out whether a "debug" declaration is missing.