From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Heerdegen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#8789: 23.3; debug backtrace buffer changes window on step-through Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:25:39 +0200 Message-ID: <87obl0fkto.fsf@web.de> References: <4F3D41DD.6080603@gmx.at> <877gzmqwcf.fsf@web.de> <504B4940.9000809@gmx.at> <86wqzznwzv.fsf@web.de> <9BABA419184241F5A7246DC5D9A9EF81@us.oracle.com> <5057A4A3.4010100@gmx.at> <4617F483F2CC446D980DF7194E06BB3A@us.oracle.com> <50581E7F.3040108@gmx.at> <1C1E224E1D674670BEE043B4A35A271F@us.oracle.com> <5059FC9C.8020702@gmx.at> <2D8C133406A54B26AD253EC7EE52C666@us.oracle.com> <505B1F26.20209@gmx.at> <87ehlwzklr.fsf@web.de> <505B51AD.2080908@gmx.at> <91FFA03F2A7341A09E280DD2BCC4A428@us.oracle.com> <83392czgvc.fsf@gnu.org> <87vcf8fnz3.fsf@web.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1348176218 32115 80.91.229.3 (20 Sep 2012 21:23:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:23:38 +0000 (UTC) To: 8789@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 20 23:23:40 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TEoDi-0006Y1-Aw for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:23:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43675 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEoDd-0000VO-O9 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:23:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46325) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEoDa-0000VF-CH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:23:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEoDZ-0004v8-9A for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:23:30 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:36148) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEoDZ-0004v4-5e for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:23:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TEoF4-0004Lf-2T for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:25:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Michael Heerdegen Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:25:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8789 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.134817629916706 (code B ref -1); Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:25:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Sep 2012 21:24:59 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45694 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TEoF0-0004LO-5T for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:24:59 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45254) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TEoEy-0004LH-Bj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:24:57 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEoDR-0004ug-R4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:23:23 -0400 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:53251) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEoDR-0004uX-O1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:23:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46290) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEoDQ-0000TT-LV for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:23:21 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEoDP-0004uA-Iw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:23:20 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.11]:64968) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEoDP-0004u6-9r for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:23:19 -0400 Original-Received: from snow.dragon ([89.204.130.212]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LrbLR-1TdnE81DNl-013LuB; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:23:18 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:34:07 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.50 (gnu/linux) X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:0f6geOeHNwnRdah96mC86JB+JpvbDFr8gVQSSmTylxq Ilb8wQdzp+W1ptgNrwyGWtgP2m88eMbq1csTaEDby6TI8siWbl xyGMS7iigWXzVVfphuE1d7JrKekAYr2k3btZY3B9IF7oHS/x2u 7Ol1CbHb+QOcriLl8puo9hgmd526CRQ91vXygxrglR0qvTmaVx QY85rVm+p/JZpy7ZbHgRXcIBqsWxMa8HnyOTzZzWak= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:64661 Archived-At: "Drew Adams" writes: > > I can use `debug' to invoke the debugger directly, which > > prevents such surprises. > > 1. Not if you put `debug' in `file-remote-p'. Or in some function > that then calls `file-remote-p. Or then calls some function that > calls file-remote-p'... I agree that this is problematic. > 3. But I also think that it should be enough, for this problematic > mode line enhancement, to simply call a duplicate of `file-remote-p' > and not `file-remote-p' itself, which is used by all kinds of code. > > If that duplicate (e.g., `mode-line-file-remote-p') is called only by > the mode-line code then that should greatly reduce, if not eliminate, > this problem for the debugger. But do you really think that this is the right approach? E.g. in dired+, we use (:eval ...) in the dired mode-string. It's not very useful to create a duplicate of all lisp functions we call in this form only because of the fact that they are used for the mode-line. And, in the case of `file-remote-p', it wouldn't even be enough to duplicate just this function. We would have to duplicate any function that could be called by `file-remote-p' as well. Michael.