bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#3984:


From: Ryan
Subject: bug#3984:
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:23:58 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8

On a related note, I just noticed that the "advice-test-called-interactively-p" test in test/automated/advice-tests.el happens to pass, but only because it doesn't use "called-interactively-p" inside the original function, but rather only inside the advice itself. Also, it doesn't test advising "call-interactively" itself. I think I will see about writing a proper test first, and then use that to start debugging.

On Thu Sep 19 01:06:03 2013, Ryan wrote:
Ok, I'll work on debugging my test case tomorrow.

On Wed Sep 18 20:38:48 2013, Stefan Monnier wrote:
advice.  This is what "advice--called-interactively-skip" does.
(Although
reading through it I don't see where the bug is that prevents it
recognizing
the before advice in my example.)

Exactly.  I think we need to fix this problem.  It really should work.

If all advised functions are wrapped by a call to the above function
"wrap-function-in-indicator-lambda",

All functions advised with a non-:around advice have such
a "recognizable wrapper"; and that's indeed what
advice--called-interactively-skip checks in

           (and (eq (nth 1 frame2) 'apply)
                (progn
                  (funcall get-next-frame)
                  (advice--p (indirect-function (nth 1 frame2)))))

IOW the nadvice.el machinery is itself the recognizable wrapper.
Not sure why this fails in your test case, tho.

For :around advices, the machinery does not provide a recognizable
wrapper, so we might want to add an ad-hoc wrapper like you suggest for
those cases, tho maybe we can avoid the cost of such a wrapper, by
keeping the so-advised inner-functions in a hash-table (so we can still
recognize them, even tho they're not tagged directly in the backtrace).

So, I think the first thing is to figure out why your test case fails.


         Stefan





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]