Number: 2075

Date:  6-Sep-84 11':52':40

Submitter: Masinter

Source: Masinter

Subject: inconsistent response from DF, "Edit" under DEDIT

Assigned To: 

Attn: 

Status: Superseded

In/By: 

Problem Type: Design - UI

Impact: Annoying

Difficulty: Moderate

Frequency: Intermittent

Priority: Perhaps

System: Programming Environment

Subsystem: Code Editor

Machine: 1108

Disk: 

Lisp Version:  4-Sep-84 19':45':00

Source Files: 

Microcode Version: 5124

Memory Size: 7167

File Server: 

Server Software Version: 

Disposition: Already in as AR 1006.'
["sheil" "12-Sep-84 19':06':09" Status':(Open->Superseded) Priority':(Unlikely->Perhaps) Disposition':]

Description: Date': 28 Aug 84 12':52 PDT'
From': trigg.pa'
Subject': Lisp': DEdit of undefined function'
To': LispSupport.pa'
cc': trigg.pa'
'
Lisp System Date': 23-Aug-84 18':52':49'
Machine': Dandelion (Melba)'
Microcode version': 24,4'
Memory size': 5777'
Frequency': Always'
Impact': Annoying'
'
From the top level, if I call DF on an undefined function, it lets me edit a "blank" function.  If I try to do that from inside DEdit (by clicking ''edit'' for an undefined function name), it doesn''t work.  Could this be made consistent?  Thanks.'
'
'
'
Sender': Masinter'
Subject': AR#2075, inconsistent response from DF, "Edit" under DEDIT'
In-reply-to': trigg.pa''s message of 28 Aug 84 12':52 PDT'
To': trigg.pa'
cc': LispSupport.pa, Sheil'
reply-to': LispSupport'
'
I''ve submitted this as AR#xxxx. The reason they work differently is because DF says "Edit this as a function", and tries hard to find a function definition, while the "Edit" button attempts to edit it as ''anything'' (e.g., it will look for record definitions). '
'
I would guess that making Edit presume it is a function should be conditional on it being in a position that a function might be expected, e.g., car of form or within a FUNCTION slot. '
'
Thanks for the bug-report.'
'
'


Workaround: 

Test Case: 

Edit-By: sheil

Edit-Date: 12-Sep-84 19':06':09