emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#25154: closed (25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in re


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 ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]