emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#59788: closed (29.0.60; [PATCH] Make treesit-end-of-defun handle nil


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: bug#59788: closed (29.0.60; [PATCH] Make treesit-end-of-defun handle nil node)
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2022 06:23:01 +0000

Your message dated Sun, 4 Dec 2022 22:22:41 -0800
with message-id <E1259C55-1E54-4893-9264-17E3A7A807B2@ucsd.edu>
and subject line Re: bug#59788: 29.0.60; [PATCH] Make treesit-end-of-defun 
handle  nil node
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #59788,
regarding 29.0.60; [PATCH] Make treesit-end-of-defun handle nil node
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
59788: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=59788
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: 29.0.60; [PATCH] Make treesit-end-of-defun handle nil node Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 21:45:59 +0100
Hi Eli, Yuan and others,

mark-defun errors when node is missing in the call to goto-char.

Repro:

emacs -Q
find-file xdisp.c
M-g M-g 450 RET
M-x mark-defun

Observe that emacs is erroring.

This patch fixes this bug.  However, I notice that
treesit-beginning-of-defun returns t after it is done.  Is there a
reason for end-of-defun not to return the same?

Theo

Attachment: 0001-Make-treesit-end-of-defun-handle-nil-node.patch
Description: Text Data


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#59788: 29.0.60; [PATCH] Make treesit-end-of-defun handle nil node Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2022 22:22:41 -0800
Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:

> On 3 December 2022 07:33:46 CET, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>>> Cc: casouri@gmail.com, eliz@gnu.org
>>> From: Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no>
>>> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 21:45:59 +0100
>>> 
>>> However, I notice that treesit-beginning-of-defun returns t after it is
>>> done.  Is there a reason for end-of-defun not to return the same?
>>
>>The return value of end-of-defun is not documented, so it can be anything.
>
> Ok thanks, then I think this patch is ok now :)
>
> Theo

I think I applied a similar patch sent in another bug report, closing
this. Thanks as always :-)

Yuan


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]