From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#19362: 25.0.50; Fix `pp.el' in line with new `elisp-mode.el' Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 23:51:47 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <126bba1e-3f86-4ae3-b7b5-59532f62e4f6@default> References: <7cb215b9-a70d-472a-ba85-15a9bc613a5e@default> <87h9ejkqqs.fsf@gnus.org> <3fe660b7-2b95-4e4a-a2c6-f03c751135d8@default> <87eg9nf0vu.fsf@gnus.org> <7a1d1091-78cc-4e88-b2d4-95d36e641ee5@default> <87poqyi05f.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467849150 20867 80.91.229.3 (6 Jul 2016 23:52:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 23:52:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 19362@debbugs.gnu.org To: Noam Postavsky Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 07 01:52:14 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bKwc2-0000lJ-ER for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 01:52:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36413 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKwc1-0002LQ-M9 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 19:52:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45634) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKwbv-0002LA-Fc for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 19:52:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKwbq-0002RG-I0 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 19:52:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:55909) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKwbq-0002RB-F6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 19:52:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bKwbq-0002LJ-9s for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 19:52:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 23:52:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19362 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: moreinfo Original-Received: via spool by 19362-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19362.14678491188993 (code B ref 19362); Wed, 06 Jul 2016 23:52:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 19362) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Jul 2016 23:51:58 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40013 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bKwbl-0002Kz-MY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 19:51:57 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:24268) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bKwbj-0002Kj-NK for 19362@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 19:51:56 -0400 Original-Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u66Npnxp012649 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 6 Jul 2016 23:51:49 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u66NpnCe012951 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 6 Jul 2016 23:51:49 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0015.oracle.com (abhmp0015.oracle.com [141.146.116.21]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u66NpmXr030950; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 23:51:48 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6744.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:120543 Archived-At: > > In the past, `eval-last-sexp' and `pp-eval-last-sexp' did about the > > same thing, apart from the pretty-printing part (which the latter > > farms out to another function). >=20 > So you're not talking about the difference between pp-to-string vs > elisp--eval-last-sexp-print-value. >=20 > > My guess is that _improvements_ > > were made to the former case (only). Just what those improvements > > were and why they were made I don't know. > [...] > > In any case, I was not really referring to the interactive behavior > > but to the code/behavior after the sexp has been determined. In > > the case of `eval-last-sexp' I guess that means the code other > > than `elisp--preceding-sexp'. >=20 > And you're not talking about the difference between (pp-last-sexp) vs > (eval-sexp-add-defvars (elisp--preceding-sexp)). >=20 > What's left? They both call eval in the middle. eval-last-sexp honours > eval-expression-debug-on-error while pp-eval-last-sexp does not (this > was the case for the old lisp-mode.el code in 24.3 as well). Other > than that I don't see anything of significance. Sorry, but I have no more time to devote to this. I pointed to a time where the code was more or less the same between the two, and to a time where it had been changed to be really quite different. It seemed (and still seems) clear to me that the non-pp version was altered considerably - probably improving something, or adapting to some other change (lexical binding, perhaps?), and the pp version was not altered similarly. My guess is that the pp version was considered less important or was simply overlooked/ignored. I think it deserves a similar look. If no one wants to do that, so be it. If you feel you've taken a careful look and understand what changed and why, and that none of the changes can be usefully extended to pp, fine. I'm not looking at this anymore, so you'll get no argument from me. I think I've said all I want to say about this. Thanks for having taken a look.