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

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

bug#65051: internal_equal manipulates symbols with position without chec


From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: bug#65051: internal_equal manipulates symbols with position without checking symbols-with-pos-enabled.
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 16:19:47 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0

Hi again, Alan,

On 11/08/2023 15:05, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

I think it was possibly a design error to have text
properties conceptually as a part of a string/buffer rather than
something associated with it, like an overlay.  The fact that equal
ignores these properties supports this view.

We needed a reference to access the properties from. Overlays are
different because they attach to a buffer. There is nothing else to
attach to when you have a string value.

This is arbitrary; overlays _could_ have been made attachable to
strings, in which case text properties need not have been.  That would
have prevented all the heart searching when considering equal with
strings.

Then we would have some "metadata" that's part of the value, and some that is not part of the value. How would we look those up, though? Through a global registry?

equal-including-properties is useful enough, by the way. In the tests, at least.

Which seems very similar to the situation with symbols, I think.

There are practical differences.  Having symbols with position simply
handled as their bare symbols would slow down Emacs quite a lot.  That's
why we have symbols-with-pos-enabled.  But you know that.

Does the current impl of 'equal' create worse performance as well? That would be a good argument to change it.

>  Currently,
> the working of s-w-p-enabled is inconsistent, and should be fixed, which
> is what this bug is about.

Inconsistent with what? If we're talking about the relation between EQUAL and EQ, objects that are EQ have to be EQUAL, but those that are EQUAL don't have to be EQ.

Anyway, I'd like to offer a question from a different perspective: should two symbols-with-positions where the positions are different but the symbol is the same, be equal between each other? If yes (which is my reading of fns.c:2755), then it makes sense for them to be equal-able to symbols without positions as well.





reply via email to

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