|
From: | GNU bug Tracking System |
Subject: | bug#69533: closed (30.0.50; Wrong byte compilation of a certain apply syntax) |
Date: | Mon, 04 Mar 2024 13:28:02 +0000 |
Your message dated Mon, 4 Mar 2024 14:25:50 +0100 with message-id <8192E9B1-D818-4F56-877E-F67B9223D4CE@gmail.com> and subject line Re: bug#69533: 30.0.50; Wrong byte compilation of a certain apply syntax has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #69533, regarding 30.0.50; Wrong byte compilation of a certain apply syntax to be marked as done. (If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact help-debbugs@gnu.org.) -- 69533: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=69533 GNU Bug Tracking System Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---Subject: 30.0.50; Wrong byte compilation of a certain apply syntax Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2024 02:51:42 +0100 Hello, C-h f apply says: | ... | With a single argument, call the argument's first element using the | other elements as args. Issue 1: This doc sentence has to be moved after the following example, because that example: | Thus, (apply '+ 1 2 '(3 4)) returns 10. is an example for the more widespread syntax. That sentence actually explains a special case: it tells that this is also allowed: (apply '(+ 1 2)) ==> 3 Issue 2: The byte compiler currently miscompiles such expressions: Expected: (funcall (lambda () (apply '(+ 1 2)))) ==> 3 but (funcall (byte-compile '(lambda () (apply '(+ 1 2))))) ~~> Error: Invalid function: (+ 1 2) AFAIU this is `byte-optimize-apply's fault: (byte-optimize-apply '(apply '(+ 1 2))) ==> (funcall '(+ 1 2) '+ '1 '2) ; Ouch! TIA, Michael.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Subject: Re: bug#69533: 30.0.50; Wrong byte compilation of a certain apply syntax Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 14:25:50 +0100 > This was probably just a mistake of mine; a `<=` should have been `<`. Actually `>=` should have been `>`. Pushed to master; closing the bug.
--- End Message ---
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |