[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#4030: forward-sexp parses character literal ?; as comment
From: |
era+emacsbugs |
Subject: |
bug#4030: forward-sexp parses character literal ?; as comment |
Date: |
Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:07:22 +0300 |
Package: emacs
Version: 23.1.50.1
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: era+emacsbugs@iki.fi
This is a pared-down version of Ubuntu bug report #405498
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/405498 -- please see the URL for the
full bug report.
It seems that forward-sexp (and its underlying C implementation) does
not cope correctly with a character literal semicolon, seeing instead
(effectively) end of line.
In the *scratch* buffer if you write (insert ?;) you can evaluate this
Lisp code and it behaves as intended (inserts a semicolon in the current
buffer) but doing M-x forward-sexp just before the expression results in
an "Unbalanced parentheses" error.
This causes problems e.g. when Customize wants to edit an .emacs file
which contains the character constant ?; anywhere in it, because
Customize uses forward-sexp to parse the user's .emacs file.
/* era */
--
If this were a real .signature, it would suck less. Well, maybe not.
/* era */
--
If this were a real .signature, it would suck less. Well, maybe not.
- bug#4030: forward-sexp parses character literal ?; as comment,
era+emacsbugs <=
- bug#4030: forward-sexp parses character literal ?; as comment, martin rudalics, 2009/08/04
- bug#4030: forward-sexp parses character literal ?; as comment, era+emacsbugs, 2009/08/05
- bug#4030: forward-sexp parses character literal ?; as comment, martin rudalics, 2009/08/05
- bug#4030: forward-sexp parses character literal ?; as comment, era+emacsbugs, 2009/08/06
- bug#4030: forward-sexp parses character literal ?; as comment, Stefan Monnier, 2009/08/06
- bug#4030: forward-sexp parses character literal ?; as comment, martin rudalics, 2009/08/07
- bug#4030: forward-sexp parses character literal ?; as comment, Stefan Monnier, 2009/08/10
- bug#4030: forward-sexp parses character literal ?; as comment, martin rudalics, 2009/08/11