[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally mod
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally modified |
Date: |
Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:22:59 +0300 |
> From: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net
> Cc: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de>, 23648@debbugs.gnu.org,
> pogonyshev@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 21:09:42 -0400
>
> > Thanks, but I'm still none the wiser about the questions I asked.
>
> Hmm, maybe it will be clearer like this:
>
> Evaluate:
>
> (macroexpand '(defun foo ()
> (declare (indent 1))
> nil)) ;=> (prog1 (defalias (quote foo) (function (lambda nil
> nil))) (function-put (quote foo) (quote lisp-indent-function) (quote 1)))
>
> This gives the correct result (the (function-put...) part comes from the
> (declare (indent 1))).
>
> Now perform a completion on a declare clause, e.g., put cursor after
> "ind" and hit C-M-i: (declare (ind)) completes to (declare (indent)).
>
> Now evaluate the same expression as before:
>
> (macroexpand '(defun foo ()
> (declare (indent 1))
> nil)) ;=> (prog1 (defalias (quote foo) (function (lambda nil
> nil))) "Warning: Unknown defun property ‘indent’ in foo")
>
> This give the wrong result, the (declare (indent 1)) is giving the
> "Warning:...". Emacs has unlearned the indent declaration. In fact it
> unlearned all the declarations for defun except for gv-setter, you can
> see this by looking at defun-declarations-alist's value.
Thanks, but I think we are mis-communicating. What I need is not a
demonstration of the bug in action; I already got that. What I asked
for is different:
> How probable is the situation where this problem pops up? And when
> was the bug introduced?
You already answered the second question. For the first, I expected
to see something done frequently by either users or Lisp programs,
which bumps into this bug. Evaluating macroexpand, twice, with
completion in-between, doesn't qualify in my book as a frequent user
action, I hope you will agree (even if you personally happen to use it
quite a lot).
So I'm still looking for the answer to the "how probable" question. I
need that to make up my mind about the urgency of the fix.
Thanks.
- bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally modified, npostavs, 2016/07/17
- bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally modified, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/07/18
- bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally modified, Noam Postavsky, 2016/07/18
- bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally modified, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/07/18
- bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally modified, Noam Postavsky, 2016/07/18
- bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally modified, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/07/18
- bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally modified, Michael Heerdegen, 2016/07/18
- bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally modified, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/07/18
- bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally modified, npostavs, 2016/07/20
- bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally modified,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally modified, Noam Postavsky, 2016/07/21
- bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally modified, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/07/23
- bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally modified, npostavs, 2016/07/23
- bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally modified, Paul Pogonyshev, 2016/07/24
- bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally modified, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/07/24
bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally modified, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/07/18