bug#49536: 28.0.50; Confusing dolist-with-progress-reporter behaviour

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de> writes:

> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>
>> I am not sure if this is intentional
>
> Looks more like a typical problem with counting...
>
>> but in case it is no, the following patch should fix it:
>>
>> From f7da2585886bd4fd795713a605ff6bd17a4c337a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
>> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 17:26:43 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] Fix dolist-with-progress-reporter behaviour
>>
>> * subr.el (dolist-with-progress-reporter): Use the length of list
>>   argument as maximal value the reporter with reach
>> ---
>>  lisp/subr.el | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lisp/subr.el b/lisp/subr.el
>> index e49c277335..20f40be40d 100644
>> --- a/lisp/subr.el
>> +++ b/lisp/subr.el
>> @@ -5880,7 +5880,7 @@ dolist-with-progress-reporter
>>             (,count 0)
>>             (,list ,(cadr spec)))
>>         (when (stringp ,prep)
>> -         (setq ,prep (make-progress-reporter ,prep 0 (1- (length ,list)))))
>> +         (setq ,prep (make-progress-reporter ,prep 0 (length ,list))))
>
> I think this patch is correct: 0 stands for 0% finished, and we have
> finished after processing 100% of the list's elements, whose number is
> (length list).  With other words: we have (+ 1 (length list)) steps: one
> after having processed each element, plus the one before having started.
>
> Are you able to install the patch, or does someone else have to do it?

I could push it, if nobody objects.

> Thanks,
>
> Michael.

-- 
	Philip Kaludercic