[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#65620: void function edebug-after
From: |
Gerd Möllmann |
Subject: |
bug#65620: void function edebug-after |
Date: |
Thu, 31 Aug 2023 09:55:18 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de> writes:
> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>
>> (defmacro hash-if (condition then-form &rest else-forms)
>> "A conditional compilation macro analogous to C's #if.
>> Evaluate CONDITION at macro-expansion time. If it is non-nil,
>> expand the macro to THEN-FORM. Otherwise expand it to ELSE-FORMS
>> enclosed in a `progn' form. ELSE-FORMS may be empty."
>> (declare (indent 2)
>> (debug (form sexp &rest sexp)))
>> (if (eval condition lexical-binding)
>> then-form
>> (cons 'progn else-forms)))
>
> Dunno if someone is able to fix this (I'm not). Until then using
> `def-form` `or `sexp` instead of `form` works in a better way (the
> former edebugs CONDITION when instrumenting, the latter would omit
> edebugging the CONDITION entirely).
>
> Anyway, the key point in the above example is that macroexpanding (while
> instrumenting) combined with the `eval' call seems to lead to the
> evaluation of instrumented code outside of an Edebug session when
> CONDITION is instrumented using `form`. `eval-when-compile' uses
> `def-form` for example - I guess using `form` in this case doesn't work
> as one might expect.
I think what's happening here is like this:
By using 'form' for condition, we're telling edebug to instruments it.
That is, the argument eval sees when foo is instrumented is whatever
edebug wraps around the condition (< ...), and that contains the
eval-after. Using sexp for the condition doesn't instrument the condition.
One can follow that in the backtrace.
So, I guess there's nothing to fix here.