From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 17:24:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87v8jt8c05.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <83r0uhqxaq.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 22 Feb 2023 22:07:09 +0200")
Hello,
On Wed 22 Feb 2023 at 10:07PM +02, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>
>> 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.
--
Sean Whitton
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-23 0:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-20 16:25 bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better Sean Whitton
2023-02-20 17:09 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-02-22 17:28 ` Sean Whitton
2023-02-22 20:07 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-02-23 0:24 ` Sean Whitton [this message]
2023-02-23 6:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-02-23 17:27 ` Sean Whitton
2023-02-23 17:42 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-02-23 18:08 ` Sean Whitton
2023-03-09 0:10 ` Sean Whitton
2023-03-09 9:40 ` Robert Pluim
2023-03-11 18:48 ` Sean Whitton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87v8jt8c05.fsf@melete.silentflame.com \
--to=spwhitton@spwhitton.name \
--cc=61658@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=eliz@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).