GNU bug report logs - #69919
Inaccurate api-procedures manual sentence on lambda formal arguments

Message received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org:

Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Mar 2024 18:09:07 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 20 14:09:07 2024
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54050 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1rn0N8-0005nn-MH
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:09:07 -0400
Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:38998)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <richard@HIDDEN>) id 1rn0N0-0005lE-0O
 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:08:58 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10])
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <richard@HIDDEN>)
 id 1rn01R-0007Jo-JS
 for bug-guile@HIDDEN; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:46:42 -0400
Received: from mail-108-mta8.mxroute.com ([136.175.108.8])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <richard@HIDDEN>)
 id 1rn01N-0004Pw-Fg
 for bug-guile@HIDDEN; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:46:41 -0400
Received: from filter006.mxroute.com ([136.175.111.2] filter006.mxroute.com)
 (Authenticated sender: mN4UYu2MZsgR)
 by mail-108-mta8.mxroute.com (ZoneMTA) with ESMTPSA id 18e5cf409000003bea.001
 for <bug-guile@HIDDEN>
 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384);
 Wed, 20 Mar 2024 17:41:20 +0000
X-Zone-Loop: 121a0dab73e1d95d33b2c9b564e96770f2d53da0adfc
X-Originating-IP: [136.175.111.2]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=freakingpenguin.com; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:
 MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:
 Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc
 :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:
 List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive;
 bh=nusVs32Lg7dPjUjHefAOtE4jgy4p8g6Litqrf/Ic/mI=; b=GFzRc7Av0qqvljQ6tu6rLjNJVr
 ztmQT8I5ROXTqNlDhNSLAVr0vbxhEf4FBDHoRKADrgU+W6Grz+XOADN5raHKI3N524nsZ067sgeoO
 rnw429akKB1JS8Lpy9PSA3okAoY2SBeaV6EUf1hP6TdSnCiIKsU/iwh5rKtjv59iYxLkKWR2sT/DB
 hZ5GZVdAOKUe6ShoJ3WItwUgJngLG7HrSAt0zUrSwq1EQvuDsArVBOgHLloFw2caE/IHM2ecByUVQ
 nn6koea4XS2HkrNV8cnuHaVrajG34MqXJpkvAxb4R30amAyQMJDPyhWOP2YLxz07tJzBZCT62WZMF
 RwZz5gvA==;
From: Richard Sent <richard@HIDDEN>
To: bug-guile@HIDDEN
Subject: Inaccurate api-procedures manual sentence on lambda formal arguments
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:40:58 -0400
Message-ID: <87h6h0dcnp.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Authenticated-Id: richard@HIDDEN
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=136.175.108.8;
 envelope-from=richard@HIDDEN; helo=mail-108-mta8.mxroute.com
X-Spam_score_int: -16
X-Spam_score: -1.7
X-Spam_bar: -
X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1,
 DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
X-Spam_action: no action
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--)

Hi Guile,

I noticed the following line in the manual on (lambda) in (info "(guile)
Lambda"). Emphasis in **.

> -- syntax: lambda formals body
>     ...
>     =E2=80=98(VARIABLE1 ... VARIABLEN . VARIABLEN+1)=E2=80=99
>          If a space-delimited period precedes the last variable, then
>          the procedure takes N or more variables where N is the number
>          of formal arguments before the period.  *There must be at
>          least one argument before the period.*

That would mean a procedure like

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
((lambda ( . args)
  args) 1) ;=3D>(1) runs fine in 3.0.9
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

is invalid because there isn't an argument before the period. I've
encountered Guile code that relies on this behavior before, even in the
Guile repo. For example, in guile/benchmark/measure.scm:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define (measure . args)
 ...)
;; should be identical to
(define measure (lambda ( . args) ...))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Ergo, I think the sentence

> There must be at least one argument before the period

should be removed. This line seems to be from the R5RS standard [1], but
this sentence is in api-procedures.texi, not the R5RS manual, so I
assume it should reflect Guile's implementation.

[1] https://conservatory.scheme.org/schemers/Documents/Standards/R5RS/HTML/=
r5rs-Z-H-2.html#%_toc_%_sec_4.1.4

--=20
Take it easy,
Richard Sent
Making my computer weirder one commit at a time.