From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6991: Please keep bytecode out of *Backtrace* buffers Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 20:52:53 +0200 Message-ID: <83vavf73ei.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8739tm9vzl.fsf@jidanni.org> <87vb5ct1lz.fsf@gnus.org> <2223f654-1e67-4a9a-a471-828fd4078410@default> <87fumokzbp.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83oa1bc3x2.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1hrlek2.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83eg27bjah.fsf@gnu.org> <87a8cvlcmk.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <8360njb9o5.fsf@gnu.org> <877f7zksm0.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83oa1a9msk.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1479840920 7699 195.159.176.226 (22 Nov 2016 18:55:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 18:55:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, johnw@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 6991@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org To: Noam Postavsky Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 22 19:55:16 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c9GDr-00018R-O4 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 19:55:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57537 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c9GDv-00085t-Ab for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:55:19 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52057) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c9GDj-0007zr-Lp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:55:11 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c9GDe-0006Qv-Mp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:55:07 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:51428) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c9GDe-0006QZ-Je for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:55:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c9GDe-0006al-Ag for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:55:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 18:55:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6991 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 6991-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6991.147984084225259 (code B ref 6991); Tue, 22 Nov 2016 18:55:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6991) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Nov 2016 18:54:02 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38594 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c9GCc-0006ZB-Tv for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:54:02 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60569) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c9GCY-0006Yw-V0 for 6991@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:53:58 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c9GCQ-0005Kv-Cq for 6991@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:53:49 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:40814) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c9GBm-0004bW-Gp; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:53:06 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1253 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1c9GBl-0007Qa-2L; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:53:05 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Noam Postavsky on Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:07:13 -0500) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] 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:125995 Archived-At: > From: Noam Postavsky > Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:07:13 -0500 > Cc: 6991@debbugs.gnu.org, Juanma Barranquero , John Wiegley , > Stefan Monnier , Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen , > Drew Adams > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > It just doesn't feel right to me to fix a problem that is specific to > > selections in a general-purpose low-level facility for printing > > strings. Emacs can handle null bytes in strings very well, so I see > > no need to change the print functions. > > Does the fact that this replacement would only happen when > `print-escape-nonascii' is non-nil help at all? And the fact that this > same function already escapes newline, formfeed, and every character > larger than 0x80 (all of which Emacs can handle in strings too)? > > Can we have both solutions? The selection fix is lossy, so avoiding > the need for it where possible seems like a good thing to me. I'm confused: which problem the above is supposed to fix? Are we still talking about putting null bytes in selections, or are we talking about something else?