[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#8711: 24.0.50; binding _ to unused values with lexical-binding
From: |
Helmut Eller |
Subject: |
bug#8711: 24.0.50; binding _ to unused values with lexical-binding |
Date: |
Mon, 23 May 2011 22:16:22 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
* Stefan Monnier [2011-05-23 19:29] writes:
>> My problem is basically that I have a macro "destructure-case" that
>> expands to destructuring-bind, e.g.:
>
>> (destructure-case location
>> ((:error _) nil)) ; do nothing
>
>> expands to
>
>> (ecase (car location)
>> (:error (destructuring-bind (_) (cdr location)
>> (ignore _)
>> nil)))
>
>> The macro inserts the (ignore _) to suppress the "value returned from
>> (car --cl-rest--) is unused" warning.
>
> It can insert (ignore nil) instead which should have the same effect but
> without triggering the other warning with lexical-binding.
Indeed. But I quickly run into another case where that doesn't help:
(defun foo (x) (destructuring-bind (y &rest _) x y))
>> There is also a somewhat related problem with loop:
>
>> ;; -*- lexical-binding: t -*-
>> (defun foo (alist) (loop for (_key . value) in alist collect value))
>
>> produces a "variable `_key' not left unused" warning.
>
> I think the same problem happens with dotimes/dolist using the old
> definition: the loop vars `key' and `value' are let-bound outside the
> loop and then setq'd at each loop iteration (it's this setq that causes
> them to be "not left unused"). This was OK for the dynamic scoping case
> because let-binding is significantly more costly than setq, but it is
> not right for the lexical scoping case where the cost of let is not
> higher than `setq' and where the semantic is actually then wrong:
> e.g. if you "collect (lambda () value)" the current code ends up
> returning a list of functions that all return the last `value', rather
> than a list of functions that each return one of the `values' in
> the alist.
The semantic of loop (in Common Lisp) allows both variants. So the
"portable" idiom is "collect (let ((value value)) (lambda () value))".
Helmut
- bug#8711: 24.0.50; binding _ to unused values with lexical-binding, Helmut Eller, 2011/05/21
- bug#8711: 24.0.50; binding _ to unused values with lexical-binding, Lawrence Mitchell, 2011/05/23
- bug#8711: 24.0.50; binding _ to unused values with lexical-binding, Stefan Monnier, 2011/05/23
- bug#8711: 24.0.50; binding _ to unused values with lexical-binding, Helmut Eller, 2011/05/23
- bug#8711: 24.0.50; binding _ to unused values with lexical-binding, Stefan Monnier, 2011/05/23
- bug#8711: 24.0.50; binding _ to unused values with lexical-binding,
Helmut Eller <=
- bug#8711: 24.0.50; binding _ to unused values with lexical-binding, Stefan Monnier, 2011/05/23
- bug#8711: 24.0.50; binding _ to unused values with lexical-binding, Helmut Eller, 2011/05/24
- bug#8711: 24.0.50; binding _ to unused values with lexical-binding, Stefan Monnier, 2011/05/24
- bug#8711: 24.0.50; binding _ to unused values with lexical-binding, Helmut Eller, 2011/05/23
- bug#8711: 24.0.50; binding _ to unused values with lexical-binding, Stefan Monnier, 2011/05/23