[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results bette
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better |
Date: |
Thu, 23 Feb 2023 08:24:42 +0200 |
> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>
> Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 17:24:26 -0700
>
> Hello,
>
> On Wed 22 Feb 2023 at 10:07PM +02, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> >> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>
> >> Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org
> >> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:28:05 -0700
> >> [...]
> >> Yes, that is a way to handle cases like this. I was thinking it might
> >> be better to have
> >>
> >> (define-error 'server-return-invalid-read-syntax
> >> "Remote function returned unreadable form"
> >> 'invalid-read-syntax)
> >>
> >> for a more flexible way to handle the situation.
> >
> > But what we have now already gives you almost the same information:
> >
> > invalid-read-syntax, "#"
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand what would the above add to this. Is
> > "Remote function returned unreadable form" really that much more
> > informative, when the user doesn't expect an error?
>
> I'm thinking about the design of calling code, not errors that bubble up
> all the way to the user. If I want to catch this situation in calling
> code, I can catch 'invalid-read-syntax'. But for that to catch only the
> errors I intend to catch, I have to assume that the only call to 'read'
> in server-eval-at is the one that reads the remote daemon's output. But
> that's an implementation detail of server-eval-at, that could change.
So you want server.el to catch the error and re-throw it with a
different signal in this particular case? Or am I misunderstanding?
- bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better, Sean Whitton, 2023/02/20
- bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/20
- bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better, Sean Whitton, 2023/02/22
- bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/22
- bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better, Sean Whitton, 2023/02/22
- bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better, Sean Whitton, 2023/02/23
- bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/23
- bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better, Sean Whitton, 2023/02/23