From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 10:20:28 +0200 Message-ID: <877e51i1tf.fsf@gnus.org> References: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> <87sgnto1bf.fsf@gnus.org> <87r23ak9ot.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="214827"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: gazally@runbox.com, 28747@debbugs.gnu.org To: Richard Stallman Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 19 10:21:11 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iLjz4-000thx-Pl for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 10:21:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50826 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iLjz3-0003xH-8r for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 04:21:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38758) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iLjyx-0003wy-KH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 04:21:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iLjyw-0008HG-GT for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 04:21:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:43094) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iLjyw-0008HB-DO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 04:21:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iLjyw-0004hr-7p for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 04:21:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:21:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 28747 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 28747-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B28747.157147323518034 (code B ref 28747); Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:21:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 28747) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Oct 2019 08:20:35 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51915 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iLjyV-0004gn-6F for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 04:20:35 -0400 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:46624) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iLjyS-0004ge-8L for 28747@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 04:20:33 -0400 Original-Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iLjyO-0003Ul-OD; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 10:20:31 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:14:33 -0400") 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: 209.51.188.43 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:169715 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > > I'm not sure this is worth the code churn, though -- as was pointed out, > > virtually all the debug specs gets this right anyway. Does anybody have > > an opinion? > > The benefit would be to simplify the specs for Edebug specs. > > The cost would be to fix the existing ones -- if they would need changing. > Would any existing correct ones need changing? They wouldn't need changing, but it'd be confusing (for people reading the code) to have some specs with &repeat and some with &rest, so I think we should change them all if we decide to introduce the &repeat alias. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no