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

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

[debbugs-tracker] bug#17630: closed (24.3.91; gv expander for a few plac


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#17630: closed (24.3.91; gv expander for a few places are incorrect)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 15:49:02 +0000

Your message dated Sat, 31 May 2014 23:47:43 +0800
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#17630: 24.3.91; gv expander for a few places are 
incorrect
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #17630,
regarding 24.3.91; gv expander for a few places are incorrect
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
17630: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=17630
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: 24.3.91; gv expander for a few places are incorrect Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 19:36:22 +0800
Hi Stefan,

These are incorrect:

(gv-define-simple-setter window-buffer set-window-buffer)
(gv-define-simple-setter window-display-table set-window-display-table 'fix)
(gv-define-simple-setter window-dedicated-p set-window-dedicated-p)
(gv-define-simple-setter window-hscroll set-window-hscroll)
(gv-define-simple-setter window-point set-window-point)
(gv-define-simple-setter window-start set-window-start)

The getter allows optional WINDOW arg but the setter requires WINDOW
arg. For example:

  (setf (window-buffer) (get-buffer "abc")) expands incorrectly to
  (set-window-buffer (get-buffer "abc"))

They should probably all be re-defined using gv-define-setter.

Leo



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#17630: 24.3.91; gv expander for a few places are incorrect Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 23:47:43 +0800 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (CentOS 6.5)
Fixed in 24.4.

On 2014-05-31 10:37 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> So using ,v twice will cause havoc in things like
>
>    (setf (window-buffer foo) (pop buffer))

The curse of multiple evaluation. I think I have corrected this.

Thanks,
Leo


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

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