[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#64543: [PATCH] package-report-bug: don't fail on custom groups defin
From: |
Philip Kaludercic |
Subject: |
bug#64543: [PATCH] package-report-bug: don't fail on custom groups defined by eval |
Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2023 12:33:59 +0000 |
sbaugh@catern.com writes:
> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>>> Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:12:48 +0000 (UTC)
>>>> From: Spencer Baugh <sbaugh@catern.com>
>>>> Cc: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>, sbaugh@janestreet.com,
>>>> 64543@debbugs.gnu.org
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 15, 2023 04:57, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > >> Previously we just assumed that the car of an element of
>>>> > >> custom-current-group-alist was a filename. But actually it
>>>> > >> can be nil
>>>> > >> if a custom group was defined by just evaling Lisp.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Where is this behaviour documented? I couldn't reproduce it with a
>>>> > > simple experiment.
>>>> >
>>>> > To reproduce:
>>>> > M-: (defgroup mygroup nil "my group") RET
>>>> >
>>>> > The patch would ensure that if groups like these are defined (which
>>>> > might happen by mistake), then `package-report-bug' will remain robust
>>>> > and not fail due to a unrelated issue.
>>>>
>>>> Is this case important enough to make this change so late in the
>>>> pretest? Spencer, how did you bump into this situation in Real Life?
>>>>
>>>> I evaled a buffer containing a defgroup with C-c C-e (or maybe just
>>>> a region?)
>>>
>>> Why did you do that?
>>
>> Evaluating an entire buffer with C-c C-e is not unreasonable, but it
>> will not bind `load-file-name', which `load-file' would have done, but
>> there is no binding for that.
>
> Maybe we should add a binding for load-file? Or maybe C-c C-e should
> bind load-file-name if the region is not active?
I am not familiar enough with the intention between distinguishing
evaluation and loading to comment on this, or where the distinction
/should/ matter.
> Btw, just curious: how do others test modifications they make to Lisp
> files? I usually make a couple changes to several functions or
> variables and then reloading the whole file is easier than going defun
> by defun.
I either eval the defuns right after editing them using C-M-x or I'd
infrequently use M-x load-file.
- bug#64543: [PATCH] package-report-bug: don't fail on custom groups defined by eval, (continued)
- bug#64543: [PATCH] package-report-bug: don't fail on custom groups defined by eval, Philip Kaludercic, 2023/07/14
- bug#64543: [PATCH] package-report-bug: don't fail on custom groups defined by eval, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/07/15
- bug#64543: [PATCH] package-report-bug: don't fail on custom groups defined by eval, Philip Kaludercic, 2023/07/15
- bug#64543: [PATCH] package-report-bug: don't fail on custom groups defined by eval, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/07/15
- bug#64543: [PATCH] package-report-bug: don't fail on custom groups defined by eval, Spencer Baugh, 2023/07/15
- bug#64543: [PATCH] package-report-bug: don't fail on custom groups defined by eval, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/07/15
- bug#64543: [PATCH] package-report-bug: don't fail on custom groups defined by eval, Philip Kaludercic, 2023/07/15
- bug#64543: [PATCH] package-report-bug: don't fail on custom groups defined by eval, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/07/15
- bug#64543: [PATCH] package-report-bug: don't fail on custom groups defined by eval, Philip Kaludercic, 2023/07/15
- bug#64543: [PATCH] package-report-bug: don't fail on custom groups defined by eval, sbaugh, 2023/07/15
- bug#64543: [PATCH] package-report-bug: don't fail on custom groups defined by eval,
Philip Kaludercic <=
- bug#64543: [PATCH] package-report-bug: don't fail on custom groups defined by eval, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/07/13