Skip to main content


A thing I keep seeing in #elisp documentation:

If such-and-such a condition occurs within function foo, it will signal an error.

Cool, which error exactly? I mean, I can wrap it in a condition-case and put a handler on t, but...

#Emacs

in reply to Zenie

@Zenie That's an option, but my concern is that the reason they might be vague in the docs is because the specific error might change in future versions.

Perhaps I'm just being overly paranoid.

in reply to Jonathan Lamothe

It's lisp. Stuff doesn't change that much.
Usually errors are obvious and for very specific reasons. You can just catch them and print the message so if anything does change you will know.
I don't think it's worth worrying about.


A thing that's really nice about #Emacs and #elisp: I don't need an internet connection to read the documentation.

reshared this



Just spent a good half hour pulling my hair out trying to figure out why one of the #elisp functions I had just written was always returning nil when I tested it. Turns out, my test was mistakenly passing its inputs to the wrong (but similarly named) function (pivot-table-get-columns instead of pivot-table-get-body).

#Haskell's type system would've caught this. πŸ™ƒ

#emacs #lisp

in reply to Jonathan Lamothe

C's type system would also have caught it, and it isn't worth a hill of beans.

By caught it what do we mean? This is not a case of some undetected error escaping your attention due to dynamic typing. You know you got a nil which is unexpected and wrong. It's in a test case which catches it.

The only thing a type system would change is that you would instead waste a half hour not understanding how your obviously correct function call can possibly have the wrong return type.

in reply to Kazinator

@Kazinator I feel that that would have been much more useful information. nil is about the least useful failure state there is.


For all the criticism I have of dynamically typed languages, I have to admit that the way #elisp (and presumably #lisp in general) does in-line documentation is pretty nice.


The seemingly canonical way of detecting whether the C-u modifier was used on an interactive function call (when an actual numerical argument wasn't provided) in #elisp feels... icky. #emacs
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe

To be fair C-u *is* a numerical argument so you're not really meant to differentiate (it means the number 4). πŸ˜…
in reply to Alessio Vanni

@Alessio Vanni Yeah, it's just very magic number-ey.

Ah well, such is the way it is with legacy code sometimes. No way to change it without breaking about a billion other things.



I wonder how difficult it would be to introduce rudimentary namespaces into #elisp.

#emacs

Harald reshared this.

in reply to Jonathan Lamothe

Just learned about interned vs. uninterned symbols. Feels like this would be a big piece of this puzzle.

This website uses cookies. If you continue browsing this website, you agree to the usage of cookies.

⇧