[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies
From: |
Mattias Engdegård |
Subject: |
bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies |
Date: |
Thu, 6 Oct 2022 14:43:09 +0200 |
6 okt. 2022 kl. 13.13 skrev Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>:
>> (format-message "%\345" 0)
>> => (error "Invalid format operation %å")
>
> And you want to show %\345 instead?
Maybe, or (as the patch suggested) using a different wording for raw bytes. In
any case %å is clearly a lie since that character wasn't in the format string.
What would you rather see in such a case?
> Are you sure this is not the
> consequence of inserting the error message into a multibyte buffer?
Quite sure. The error message is always produced as multibyte and the %c
processing done at doprnt.c:471:
case 'c':
{
int chr = va_arg (ap, int);
tem = CHAR_STRING (chr, (unsigned char *) charbuf);
where CHAR_STRING renders chr (the %c argument passed to `error`) as a
multibyte char to charbuf here.
>>> Who said anything about #x3fffc? The original code had #xfc, the
>>> unibyte code for #x3ffffc.
>>
>> There seems to be a misunderstanding. The original (and current) code
>> attempts to display char #x3fffc, which is not a raw byte. It's just a typo
>> for #x3ffffc -- not a big deal.
>
> But your change replaced it with \xfc, which is what I questioned.
Oh, I see -- you are looking at the hunk that changed the labels, not the
character tested. When 3fffc was changed into 3ffffc, the "expected" string
needed to change accordingly; for the latter, it's \xfc or \374 depending on
mode.
> Why not test both #x3ffffc and #xfc? And the same question about
> \777777 vs \374.
Testing #x3ffffc inserts the raw byte #xfc so that takes care of that -- the
test already exercised inserting the unibyte raw byte #x80 and the patch didn't
change that.
I don't think these two cases actually exercise different paths in redisplay
since the buffer is multibyte:
(insert "\xfc")
and
(insert (char-to-string #x3ffffc))
should have identical effects on the buffer and hence the display, but it
doesn't hurt to have one of each.
\777774 is just octal for #x3fffc which was changed into the (intended)
#x3ffffc, and \374 is octal for #xfc which is covered as above.
Thus, the only case actually removed was #x3fffc since it was a typo, and
#x10abcd was put in its place.
- bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies, (continued)
- bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/01
- bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies, Mattias Engdegård, 2022/10/01
- bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/10/01
- bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies, Mattias Engdegård, 2022/10/03
- bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/10/04
- bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/04
- bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies, Mattias Engdegård, 2022/10/04
- bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/04
- bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies, Mattias Engdegård, 2022/10/06
- bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/06
- bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies,
Mattias Engdegård <=
- bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/06
- bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies, Mattias Engdegård, 2022/10/07
- bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/07
- bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies, Mattias Engdegård, 2022/10/08
- bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/01