[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#64459: 30.0.50; Edebug can't instrument certain syntax-propertize-ru
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
bug#64459: 30.0.50; Edebug can't instrument certain syntax-propertize-rules forms |
Date: |
Wed, 05 Jul 2023 08:43:15 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
>> > > diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/syntax.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/syntax.el
>> > > index d610fa005cc..002a24af18b 100644
>> > > --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/syntax.el
>> > > +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/syntax.el
>> > > @@ -249,11 +249,12 @@ syntax-propertize-rules
>> > > Note: There may be at most nine back-references in the REGEXPs of
>> > > all RULES in total."
>> > > (declare (debug (&rest &or symbolp ;FIXME: edebug this eval step.
>> > > - (form &rest
>> > > - (numberp
>> > > - [&or stringp ;FIXME: Use &wrap
>> > > - ("prog1" [&or stringp def-form]
>> > > def-body)
>> > > - def-form])))))
>> > > + (def-form
>> > > + &rest
>> > > + (numberp
>> > > + [&or stringp ;FIXME: Use &wrap
>> > > + ("prog1" [&or stringp form] def-body)
>> > > + form])))))
>> > > (let ((newrules nil))
>> > > (while rules
>> > > (if (symbolp (car rules))
>> >
>> > No, this one introduces a regression. Try that one:
>> >
>>
>> Yeah, that works at least in the cases I've tested. Thanks!
>
> Stefan, this is for master, right?
Yes: if you want it for `emacs-29`, I do think it's perfectly safe (it
just replaces the one `form` with `def-form`), but I don't see any
urgency here.
Stefan