|
From: | GNU bug Tracking System |
Subject: | [debbugs-tracker] bug#25154: closed (25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order) |
Date: | Fri, 23 Dec 2016 16:32:02 +0000 |
Your message dated Fri, 23 Dec 2016 16:30:47 +0000 with message-id <address@hidden> and subject line Re: bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #25154, regarding 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order to be marked as done. (If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact address@hidden) -- 25154: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=25154 GNU Bug Tracking System Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message ---Subject: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 17:36:15 -0600 Compare the following: (let ((x 5) (x 6)) (+ x 10)) => 16 (cl-letf ((x 5) (x 6)) (+ x 10)) => 15 This also occurs when using non-trivial places: (setq v (vector 1 2 3 4 5)) (cl-letf (((aref v 1) 10) ((aref v 1) 20)) (aref v 1)) => 10 I ran into this when using two different setters that sometimes indirectly modify the same variable. The current behaviour makes the result of that unexpected.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Subject: Re: bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 16:30:47 +0000 Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> schrieb am Fr., 23. Dez. 2016 um 14:53 Uhr:> From: Philipp Stephani <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:17:54 +0000
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
>
> I agree, patches to that effect are welcome. (AFAICT, the manual
> tries to say that already, but the wording could be more explicit.)
>
> OK, I've attached a patch that hopefully clarifies this a bit.
Thanks. My only comment is that I think we prefer talking about
"binding" instead of "assignment".OK, replaced "assign" with "bind" and pushed to emacs-25 as c04ac8a3191820d37e7858b7ca4e31cf04808cc3.
--- End Message ---
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |