bug#29367: 27.0.50; State and doc of `inline'

[Michael Heerdegen]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> In that case, it would seem to correspond to what, in
> Common Lisp, would be a declaration (`declare').
>
> In Common Lisp, declarations are supposed to be documented, even when
> implementation-specific.  They are something a user provides, so users
> need to know about them.

Glenn has already fixed it like this:

>From 8d450453fae4518f79f7f951d8c70e11f887a934 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:53:31 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] * lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-run.el (inline): Give it a doc.

---
 lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-run.el | 8 ++++++--
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-run.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-run.el
index abfcdb347a..e4f21c9d6d 100644
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-run.el
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-run.el
@@ -286,8 +286,12 @@ defun
 
 
 ;; Redefined in byte-opt.el.
-;; This is not documented--it's not clear that we should promote it.
-(fset 'inline 'progn)
+;; This was undocumented and unused for decades.
+(defalias 'inline 'progn
+  "Like `progn', but when compiled inline top-level function calls in body.
+You don't need this.  (See bytecomp.el commentary for more details.)
+
+\(fn BODY...)")
 
 ;;; Interface to inline functions.
 
-- 
2.15.0

Given that it apparently should not be used in new code, I'm ok with it.


Michael.