From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 08:24:42 +0200 Message-ID: <83k008rj9x.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87r0uk1eyp.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83zg98tgb7.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn49boey.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83r0uhqxaq.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8jt8c05.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="7670"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org To: Sean Whitton Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 23 07:25:18 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pV52c-0001qP-ER for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 07:25:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pV52O-000770-80; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 01:25:04 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pV52M-00076Z-J0 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 01:25:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pV52M-0002QK-A8 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 01:25:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pV52M-0005Rj-1q for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 01:25:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 06:25:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 61658 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 61658-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B61658.167713347620893 (code B ref 61658); Thu, 23 Feb 2023 06:25:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 61658) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Feb 2023 06:24:36 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60972 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pV51v-0005Qv-UR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 01:24:36 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:33832) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pV51t-0005Qi-4C for 61658@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 01:24:34 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pV51n-0002NZ-Jw; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 01:24:27 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=llI9DG3FqJbF7RJR/lPZiIdXPkM8FbCNdt0k1UKyP8U=; b=Srb6pFrm6xfu DZ+qmvbZ5BBzIsjwa0otFhBLMAd8P0oOIQ6o/TehJ5o5lyWfJbiwhH5Ym/n8hFZgtnK1h9o2mfFRp G2ERYGZ4KznTyw5Jg9bPe5D7ivAoEXi4RfyJdl4EU2VDqg7ftcHOhh3afShl7sf25C/2NgIpc27aU riJWUvsQQFWDvcIawwwNwx/SHnQ0i+vztxAJTFmbmMFaEjE3PrIgiHJGA4Rv9YH39CopNDt+ZkKXc PHORaGXpPOGAt+kCce4DDulFc+2JEGsdinheqQPOPk19cgcRoyCn3ivkyGZJdM/L8ejxY8YQwssLN Wio/XJfdsF6sDpcEJZmzlg==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pV51m-0008SY-Q5; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 01:24:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87v8jt8c05.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> (message from Sean Whitton on Wed, 22 Feb 2023 17:24:26 -0700) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:256418 Archived-At: > From: Sean Whitton > Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 17:24:26 -0700 > > Hello, > > On Wed 22 Feb 2023 at 10:07PM +02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > >> From: Sean Whitton > >> Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org > >> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:28:05 -0700 > >> [...] > >> Yes, that is a way to handle cases like this. I was thinking it might > >> be better to have > >> > >> (define-error 'server-return-invalid-read-syntax > >> "Remote function returned unreadable form" > >> 'invalid-read-syntax) > >> > >> for a more flexible way to handle the situation. > > > > But what we have now already gives you almost the same information: > > > > invalid-read-syntax, "#" > > > > I'm not sure I understand what would the above add to this. Is > > "Remote function returned unreadable form" really that much more > > informative, when the user doesn't expect an error? > > I'm thinking about the design of calling code, not errors that bubble up > all the way to the user. If I want to catch this situation in calling > code, I can catch 'invalid-read-syntax'. But for that to catch only the > errors I intend to catch, I have to assume that the only call to 'read' > in server-eval-at is the one that reads the remote daemon's output. But > that's an implementation detail of server-eval-at, that could change. So you want server.el to catch the error and re-throw it with a different signal in this particular case? Or am I misunderstanding?