bug#61658: closed (30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Wed, 08 Mar 2023 17:10:51 -0700
with message-id <87zg8mbx84.fsf@melete.silentflame.com>
and subject line Re: bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable 
results better
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #61658,
regarding 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
61658: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=61658
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Mon, 20 Feb 2023 09:25:34 -0700
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
>
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> 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?
>
> -- 
> Sean Whitton
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Wed, 08 Mar 2023 17:10:51 -0700
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
>
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Now implemented.  Doesn't seem to me like a NEWS entry is warranted, but
> if anyone strongly disagrees I can write one.
>
> -- 
> Sean Whitton
>
>
> --- End Message ---