[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#66979: Wrong number of arguments with completion-at-point
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
bug#66979: Wrong number of arguments with completion-at-point |
Date: |
Tue, 07 Nov 2023 13:31:40 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
>> Some recent change broke completion-at-point:
>>
>> 0. emacs -Q
>> 1. (setq debug-on-error t)
>> 2. Type in the *scratch*:
>>
>> (defun a M-C-i
>>
>> raises the error (wrong-number-of-arguments (2 . 2) 1)
>
> Stefan, this looks like another case for the recently fixed
> bug#58148, bug#58396, bug#58557.
So you're suggesting we should remove the `debug` from the
`condition-case` in `elisp--local-variables`?
This was added by Alan in:
commit f931cebce76d911dfc61274e0a8c1de3627b9179
Author: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
Date: Wed Sep 20 15:51:17 2023 +0000
Insert symbol `debug' into two condition-case handlers
This fixes bug#65622. Also correct a mismatch between a
function to which advice is added, and that from which it is
removed.
* lisp/emacs-lisp/macroexp.el (internal-macroexpand-for-load):
Add a `debug' to the condition-case handler for `error', so
that a useful backtrace will be produced on a macro expansion
error.
* lisp/progmodes/elisp-mode.el (elisp--local-variables): Add
`debug' to a condition-case handler, as above. In the
advice-remove call, give the same function, macroexpand-1, as
in the corresponding advice-add call.
Alan do you remember why you also added the `debug` to the
condition-case in `elisp--local-variables`?
The rest of the commit looks right to me.
Macro expansion errors in there are perfectly normal since
`elisp--local-variables` routinely passes incomplete code to
macroexpand. IOW most errors signal'd in there probably don't need to
be debugged at all.
Stefan
- bug#66979: Wrong number of arguments with completion-at-point, Juri Linkov, 2023/11/07
- bug#66979: Wrong number of arguments with completion-at-point, Juri Linkov, 2023/11/07
- bug#66979: Wrong number of arguments with completion-at-point,
Stefan Monnier <=
- bug#66979: Wrong number of arguments with completion-at-point, Alan Mackenzie, 2023/11/07
- bug#66979: Wrong number of arguments with completion-at-point, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/07
- bug#66979: Wrong number of arguments with completion-at-point, Alan Mackenzie, 2023/11/07
- bug#66979: Wrong number of arguments with completion-at-point, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/07
- bug#66979: Wrong number of arguments with completion-at-point, Juri Linkov, 2023/11/09
- bug#66979: Wrong number of arguments with completion-at-point, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/12