[debbugs-tracker] bug#25017: closed (Fwd: Re: dotimes var comiler warning)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Mon, 28 Nov 2016 17:31:49 +0100
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#25017: Fwd: Re: dotimes var comiler warning
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #25017,
regarding Fwd: Re: dotimes var comiler warning
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
25017: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=25017
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems

--- Begin Message --- Subject: Fwd: Re: dotimes var comiler warning Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:10:02 +0100 User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.4.0

See text below, thanks!

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	Re: dotimes var comiler warning
Date:	Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:32:44 +0100
From:	Michael Heerdegen <address@hidden>
To:	Andreas Röhler <address@hidden>
CC:	Help Gnu Emacs mailing list <address@hidden>

Andreas Röhler <address@hidden> writes:

> when employing a form
>
> (dotimes (i erg)
>
>    ...do-something
>
>
> Compiler sends a warning "Unused lexical variable ‘i’ - whilst seems
> no way to leave out such a var.
>
> Worth a bug-report?

If none exists yet, I'm for it.  FWIW, there is a FIXME comment in the
source code already.

Yes, you can probably use `_' to suppress the warning, but I always
wondered why something called like this requires a variable to be
specified (mandatorily) at all.


Michael.

--- End Message ---

> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#25017: Fwd: Re: dotimes var comiler warning
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Mon, 28 Nov 2016 17:31:49 +0100
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux)
>
>
>
>
> Philipp Stephani <address@hidden> writes:
>
> >  For purposes of this thread: As in Emacs Lisp, both VAR
> >  and COUNT are required arguments. In general, I'd prefer
> >  that Emacs Lisp not diverge from but converge toward
> >  Common Lisp.
> >
> > The (implicit) decision to diverge further from Common Lisp has been
> > made a while ago, by prefixing the CL functions with `cl' and
> > importing the `seq' and `map' libraries, which provide similar
> > functionality, but with a different interface.
>
> Maybe (though, I don't think there was such decision, implicit or not -
> "seq" and "map" functions also have an according prefix - I wouldn't say
> we are converging are diverging to/from Common Lisp at all, but give
> developers a stylistic choice).  But here were are talking about a
> construct that exists in pure Elisp, and OTOH also in Common Lisp,
> sharing the same name.  If there is not really a need to make the
> semantics differ, I prefer to leave things as they are, because
> everything else would probably be more confusing than helpful.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael.
>
>
> --- End Message ---