[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#29367: 27.0.50; State and doc of `inline'

From: Michael Heerdegen
Subject: bug#29367: 27.0.50; State and doc of `inline'
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 18:27:27 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Drew Adams <address@hidden> writes:

> In that case, it would seem to correspond to what, in
> Common Lisp, would be a declaration (`declare').
> In Common Lisp, declarations are supposed to be documented, even when
> implementation-specific.  They are something a user provides, so users
> need to know about them.

Glenn has already fixed it like this:

>From 8d450453fae4518f79f7f951d8c70e11f887a934 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Glenn Morris <address@hidden>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:53:31 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] * lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-run.el (inline): Give it a doc.

 lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-run.el | 8 ++++++--
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-run.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-run.el
index abfcdb347a..e4f21c9d6d 100644
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-run.el
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-run.el
@@ -286,8 +286,12 @@ defun
 ;; Redefined in byte-opt.el.
-;; This is not documented--it's not clear that we should promote it.
-(fset 'inline 'progn)
+;; This was undocumented and unused for decades.
+(defalias 'inline 'progn
+  "Like `progn', but when compiled inline top-level function calls in body.
+You don't need this.  (See bytecomp.el commentary for more details.)
+\(fn BODY...)")
 ;;; Interface to inline functions.

Given that it apparently should not be used in new code, I'm ok with it.


reply via email to

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