--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
30.0.50; `describe-function' issue with some methods |
|
Date: |
Sun, 13 Aug 2023 12:36:25 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.14.0 |
Hello,
It seems there is an issue with `describe-function' of a method that
calls `cl-call-next-method'. For a such method `describe-function' says
that the method is "Undocumented" even if a doc string is present.
Also the mentioned signature is weird. See an illustration below using
a simple recipe, running 'emacs -Q'.
Thanks!
<1> In scratch buffer eval:
===========================
*scratch*
------------------------------------------------------------------
(cl-defgeneric foo (arg)
"Generic foo receiving any ARG."
(format "%S" arg))
foo
(cl-defmethod foo ((arg atom))
"Specialized foo receiving any atoms."
(format "atom %s" (cl-call-next-method)))
foo
(cl-defmethod foo ((arg string))
"Specialized foo receiving strings."
(format "string %S" arg))
foo
;; Check results are correct
(foo 1)
"atom 1"
(foo '(1))
"(1)"
(foo "1")
"string \"1\""
------------------------------------------------------------------
<2> M-x describe-function RET foo RET
=====================================
*Help* (is not correct for the method using `cl-call-next-method')
------------------------------------------------------------------
foo is a byte-compiled Lisp function.
(foo ARG)
Generic foo receiving any ARG.
Probably introduced at or before Emacs version 1.2.
This is a generic function.
Implementations:
(foo (ARG string))
Specialized foo receiving strings.
(foo (ARG0 atom) &rest CL--ARGS) <<<<<<<<<<<<< Incorrect
Undocumented
(foo ARG)
Undocumented
------------------------------------------------------------------
<3> In scratch buffer eval:
===========================
*scratch*
------------------------------------------------------------------
;; Redefine method without calling `cl-call-next-method'
(cl-defmethod foo ((arg atom))
"Specialized foo receiving any atoms."
(format "atom %S" arg))
foo
;; Check results are correct
(foo 1)
"atom 1"
(foo '(1))
"(1)"
(foo "1")
"string \"1\""
------------------------------------------------------------------
<4> M-x describe-function RET foo RET
=====================================
*Help* (is correct)
------------------------------------------------------------------
foo is a byte-compiled Lisp function.
(foo ARG)
Generic foo receiving any ARG.
Probably introduced at or before Emacs version 1.2.
This is a generic function.
Implementations:
(foo (ARG string))
Specialized foo receiving strings.
(foo (ARG atom)) <<<<<<<<<<<<< Correct
Specialized foo receiving any atoms.
(foo ARG)
Undocumented
------------------------------------------------------------------
In GNU Emacs 30.0.50 (build 1, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version
3.24.38, cairo version 1.17.8) of 2023-08-13
Repository revision: de6c1c4d5c92b92d5b280e157c2a5bc3228749f2
Repository branch: master
Windowing system distributor 'The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.12014000
System Description: Fedora Linux 38 (KDE Plasma)
Configured using:
'configure --with-x-toolkit=gtk3
--with-native-compilation=no'
Configured features:
ACL CAIRO DBUS FREETYPE GIF GLIB GMP GNUTLS GSETTINGS HARFBUZZ JPEG JSON
LCMS2 LIBOTF LIBSELINUX LIBSYSTEMD LIBXML2 M17N_FLT MODULES NOTIFY
INOTIFY PDUMPER PNG RSVG SECCOMP SOUND SQLITE3 THREADS TIFF
TOOLKIT_SCROLL_BARS TREE_SITTER WEBP X11 XDBE XIM XINPUT2 XPM GTK3 ZLIB
Important settings:
value of $LC_TIME: fr_FR.utf8
value of $LANG: fr_FR.UTF-8
locale-coding-system: utf-8-unix
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: bug#65270: 30.0.50; `describe-function' issue with some methods |
|
Date: |
Fri, 15 Sep 2023 05:24:43 -0700 |
Version: 30.1
David Ponce <da_vid@orange.fr> writes:
> On 15/08/2023 04:40, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> It seems there is an issue with `describe-function' of a method that
>>> calls `cl-call-next-method'. For a such method `describe-function' says
>>> that the method is "Undocumented" even if a doc string is present.
>> I pushed a patch to `master` which seems to fix this problem.
>>
>>> Also the mentioned signature is weird. See an illustration below using
>>> a simple recipe, running 'emacs -Q'.
>> I think we still have a problem here when the method is not
>> byte-compiled, but I think the problem is in `help-function-arglist`
>> which decides to use the "raw arglist" from the interpreted closure
>> without looking at the arg names stashed in the docstring.
>> Stefan
>>
>
> Hello Stefan,
>
> I confirm that your patch fixed the issue with doc string, and with
> arglist of byte-compiled methods (which is probably the common case).
>
> Thank you very much!
It seems like this issue was fixed, but it was left open in the bug
tracker. I'm therefore closing it now.
--- End Message ---