[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: |
Mon, 20 Feb 2023 19:09:00 +0200 |
> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>
> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 09:25:34 -0700
>
> I use server-eval-at to call a function, in another daemon, which
> returns a buffer. So, server-eval-at tries (read "#<buffer *foo*>")
> which of course fails, and indeed signals an error.
>
> I wonder if server-eval-at should return a special value to indicate
> that the remote computation returned something that is not readably
> printable? Or signal a particular error, which the caller might catch?
Why can't you make that function return something more sensible? Or
even just nil?
- 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 <=
- 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, 2023/02/23
- 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