Re: lazy-handler-dispatch and debug-on-error

[Neil Jerram]

>>>>> "Neil" == Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:

>>>>> "Mikael" == Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden> writes:
    Mikael> The original design might have had something to do with
    Mikael> being able to cut the stack at a proper level in order to
    Mikael> get a nice backtrace printout.  But this should have been
    Mikael> solved later by the introduction of start-stack.  (You
    Mikael> still might want to check that stack cutting works after
    Mikael> your change.)

    Neil> Yes, I think I might have unintentionally broken this.  I'll
    Neil> investigate ...

Yes, you're quite right; my change did break this.  I've undone that
change and added the following comment.

                  ;; Note that having just
                  ;; `lazy-handler-dispatch' here is
                  ;; connected with the mechanism that
                  ;; produces a nice backtrace upon
                  ;; error.  If, for example, this is
                  ;; replaced with (lambda args (apply
                  ;; lazy-handler-dispatch args)), the
                  ;; stack cutting (in save-stack)
                  ;; goes wrong and ends up saving no
                  ;; stack at all, so there is no
                  ;; backtrace.
                  lazy-handler-dispatch))

(As far as debug-on-error is concerned, I don't now think this is a
good way to implement it anyway.)

        Neil