bug#44943: closed (28.0.50; defvar may return INITVALUE and overwrite symbol's value)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sun, 29 Nov 2020 21:06:26 +0900
with message-id <86ft4sfjul.wl--xmue@d1.dion.ne.jp>
and subject line Re: bug#44943: 28.0.50; defvar may return INITVALUE and 
overwrite symbol's value
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #44943,
regarding 28.0.50; defvar may return INITVALUE and overwrite symbol's value
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
44943: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=44943
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> 28.0.50; defvar may return INITVALUE and overwrite symbol's value
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sun, 29 Nov 2020 19:49:22 +0900
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (Gojō) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/28.0.50 (x86_64-w64-mingw32) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
>
>
>
>
> When evaluate below codes, I get unexpected result.
>
> (defvar test 1)
>
> -> test
>
> It is expected.
>
> (defvar test 2)
>
> -> 2
>
> It should return 'test'.
>
> (symbol-value 'test)
>
> -> 2
>
> It should return 1.
>
> -- 
> Kazuhiro Ito
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#44943: 28.0.50; defvar may return INITVALUE and overwrite symbol's value
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sun, 29 Nov 2020 21:06:26 +0900
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (Gojō) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/28.0.50 (x86_64-w64-mingw32) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
>
>
>
>
> > > When evaluate below codes, I get unexpected result.
> > >
> > > (defvar test 1)
> > >
> > > -> test
> > >
> > > It is expected.
> > >
> > > (defvar test 2)
> > >
> > > -> 2
> > >
> > > It should return 'test'.
> > >
> > > (symbol-value 'test)
> > >
> > > -> 2
> > >
> > > It should return 1.
> > 
> > When you say "evaluate", what do you mean?  Doing `C-x C-e' after the
> > form?  If it's the latter, then the doc string explains what's
> > happening (and this is new behaviour in Emacs 28):
>
> I meant C-j in *scratch* buffer (eval-print-last-sexp) and `C-x C-e'.
> They return the same result.  I didn't notice the change of
> eval-last-sexp, sorry.  I'm closing this issue.
>
> -- 
> Kazuhiro Ito
>
>
> --- End Message ---