[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: push and pop
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: push and pop |
Date: |
Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:23:38 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
> The macros "push" and "pop" in `subr' don't do the same thing as the push
> and pop in `cl'. This means that if you use:
> (eval-when-compile (require 'cl))
> in your code, the behavior will change depending on whether the compiled
> version is loaded (cl version), or you are interactively debugging (subr
> version). An example of a semantic which will fail with the subr version
> but not the cl version:
> (setq ov (pop (cdr ov-list)))
> which requires a list argument to pop, instead of the cdr of a list.
I don't see the problem. When debugging code in a file that does (require
FOO), you need to (require FOO) before doing C-x C-e or M-C-x.
Nothing new here.
The only difference is that in macs-20 (when subr.el didn't define its iown
version of `pop') you'd get an error "void function `pop'" whereas now you
get another error.
> Any suggestions on how to work around this (other than the obvious "don't
> do that")?
Don't do that,
Stefan
- push and pop, JD Smith, 2005/01/07
- Re: push and pop, David Kastrup, 2005/01/07
- Re: push and pop,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: push and pop, JD Smith, 2005/01/07
- Re: push and pop, Miles Bader, 2005/01/07
- Re: push and pop, Richard Stallman, 2005/01/08
- Re: push and pop, JD Smith, 2005/01/09
- Re: push and pop, Francis Litterio, 2005/01/09
- Re: push and pop, Luc Teirlinck, 2005/01/09
- Re: push and pop, David Kastrup, 2005/01/09
- Re: push and pop, Richard Stallman, 2005/01/10