[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument
From: |
John Wiegley |
Subject: |
bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:06:30 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin) |
>>>>> Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
> My preference for the compiler is to (a) let you know there are syntax
> problems, and where they are, and (b) generate code that acts the same as
> the interpreted code: in this case, raise a runtime error.
Let's take a different case as a behavorial example:
The code: (funcall)
Interpreted: Raises an error: eval: Wrong number of arguments: funcall, 0
Byte-compilation: No warnings or errors printed.
Loading of .elc: Raises an error: load: Wrong number of arguments: funcall, 0
I think that we should be consistent in our behavior. Mis-using Emacs Lisp is
not a reason to fail to byte-compile, even if it is a reason for it to fail to
evaluate or load.
A separate argument could be made that bad code shouldn't compile, but that's
orthogonal to this discussion, and too big a pill to swallow for 25.1.
John
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, (continued)
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, Alan Mackenzie, 2015/11/25
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, Artur Malabarba, 2015/11/25
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, Alan Mackenzie, 2015/11/25
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, Artur Malabarba, 2015/11/25
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, Alan Mackenzie, 2015/11/25
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, Drew Adams, 2015/11/25
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, Alan Mackenzie, 2015/11/25
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, Drew Adams, 2015/11/25
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, Alan Mackenzie, 2015/11/25
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, Drew Adams, 2015/11/25
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument,
John Wiegley <=
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, Drew Adams, 2015/11/25
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, Artur Malabarba, 2015/11/25
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, John Wiegley, 2015/11/25
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, Artur Malabarba, 2015/11/25
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, John Wiegley, 2015/11/25
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, Alan Mackenzie, 2015/11/26
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, Alan Mackenzie, 2015/11/25
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, Drew Adams, 2015/11/25
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, John Wiegley, 2015/11/25
- bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument, John Mastro, 2015/11/25