[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 15:13:53 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
>> 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.
>
> I was trying to debug an error in eager macro expansion (i.e. macro
> expansion in forms called directly by read), and that was the
> condition-case that was suppressing the backtrace.
Really? I'd expect this case to go through the `condition-case` that's
in `internal-macroexpand-for-load` but not the condition-case that's in
`elisp--local-variables`.
Any chance you can still reproduce the bug and get a backtrace showing
how `elisp--local-variables` gets involved?
>> 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.
> But when somebody has set debug-on-error to t, they _want_ those errors
> signalled, surely?
No, I have it set and don't want to be told that the internal completion
machinery extracted broken code from the current buffer in its
best-effort attempt to compute the set of surrounding lexical variables.
In 99% of the cases, it is neither a bug in the code I'm editing nor in
the macros. The design of `elisp--local-variables` is such that it
often builds syntactically invalid code to pass to the macro expander.
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, 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 <=
- 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