bug#48042: 26.3; Macros don't work with french-postfix input method

[Gregory Heytings <gregory@heytings.org>]

>
> If you search the Lisp files for unread-command-events,
>

Of course I did this.

>
> you will see how many features unrelated to input methods do add stuff 
> to unread-command-events.  What if an input method were active while one 
> of those unrelated features does that?
>

As I just said to Stefan, we could perhaps wait for an actual bug report 
to see whether this happens?  I tried to fix this bug, it still seems to 
me that what I proposed is TRT because it fixes the problem at its "root", 
but I cannot fix yet unknown bugs.

>
> That part didn't exist because once upon a time we recorded everything 
> immediately as it happened.  When that changed (for a good reason, as 
> described in the discussion cited by the commit log message), we needed 
> to keep track of what was and what wasn't recorded.  So restoring the 
> behavior back to what it was then doesn't help me to gain confidence in 
> the correctness of the patch, sorry.  Going back to what we had there is 
> certainly not something we should do.
>

We're not going back to what we had earlier, the patch goes back to what 
we had only when an input method is activated.

>
> Hmm... but the from_macro label seems to indicate that this code runs 
> for macros as well, even when input method is not active?
>

And in that case, given that the condition checks whether an input method 
is active, the event will be recorded.

>
> So you are saying we should bind the variable there as well?
>

I don't know, and didn't test that.  As I said above, it seems to me that 
fixing a bug at its "root" is much better than trying to add code 
elsewhere to circumvent the bug.

>
> Thanks.
>

What do you expect me to do now?