bug#22983: syntax-ppss returns wrong result.

[Dmitry Gutov]

Hi Alan,

On 9/7/17 11:45 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

> The solution I propose is to introduce a second cache into syntax-ppss,
> and this cache would be used whenever (not (eq (point-min) 1)).
> Whenever point-min changes, and isn't 1, this second cached would be
> calculated again from scratch.

Thanks for writing this up. I think it's a good step, and since it 
follow the current wording of the docstring, it should be highly 
compatible with the existing code.

> This proposal has these advantages:
>
> (i) It would make the function deliver what its unchanged doc string
> says.  This is important, given that syntax-ppss has been very widely
> used within Emacs, and likely by external packages too; these will
> typically have assumed the advertised behaviour of the function, without
> having tested it in narrowed buffers.

It will also continue to function as expected in mmm-mode, AFAICT, 
without the need for an "escape hatch" we discussed before.

> (i) In the case which currently works, namely a non-narrowed buffer,
> there would be only a minute slow-down (basically, there would be extra
> code to check point-min and select the cache to use).
>
> (ii) The cache for use in a narrowed buffer might well be sufficiently
> fast in normal use.  If it is not, it could be enhanced readily.

And since the API doesn't change, and the observable behavior doesn't 
either (in the vast majority of cases; probably all except the broken 
ones), we can refine this solution easily, or even swap it for something 
else, with little cost.

> I think Dmitry also proposed a method of solution some months ago,
> though I don't remember in detail what it was.  Dmitry, do you still
> think your solution would work?  If so, please elaborate on it.

There is a simple patch at 
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=22983#47, but I after some 
consideration, I now prefer your proposed approach. We've also had some 
grander ideas about enhancing things further, but those can be added 
later, after we finally decide.

I do want to know what Stefan thinks of this subject now, though.

Caveats:

- This solves the dependency on point-min, but does nothing about the 
dependency on the current syntax-table (which can change). I'm not 
necessarily suggesting we try to solve that now, though.

- Before this change is pushed to master, or shortly after, I'd like to 
know that it actually fixed the problem Philipp experienced with 
python-mode, so we can revert 4fbd330. If it was caused by e.g. 
syntax-table changing, we've not improved much.

All the best,
Dmitry.