bug#33375: 27.0.50; Nested function definitions

[Andreas Röhler]

On 14.11.2018 16:40, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de>
> > Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 11:06:52 +0100
> >
> > (defun foo1 ()
> >     "[Some docu]
> >
> > (defun other-foo "
> >     (interactive)
> >     ;; defining another function inside
> >     (defun foo2 ()
> >       (interactive)
> >       (message "%s"   "Foo2")
> > ;; another syntactically correct function just badly indented
> > (defun foo3 ()
> >     (interactive)
> >     (message "%s" "Foo3"))
> >         )
> >     (message "%s" "Foo1"))
> >
> > ;;;;
> > Results of evaluation:
> >
> > (foo1) ==> "Foo1"
> > (foo2) ==> foo3 ?
> > (foo3) ==> "Foo3"
>
> Why do you think there's anything wrong here?  AFAICT, each evaluation
> returns the last sexp evaluated in the respective function.  foo1 and
> foo3 have a call to 'message' as the last sexp, so they return the
> message string, but foo2's last sexp evaluates a defun form, so you
> get the result of that, which is the function foo3.  IMO, this is
> expected and correct behavior.

Basically these forms were made to display a beginning-of-defun bug.

See tests in previous posts.

What puzzles me when evaluating:


(setq a (foo2))
a ==> foo3
(call-interactively 'foo2) ==> foo3

But M-x foo2 RET messages "Foo2"