bug#27726: 26.0.50; plist functions give confusing errors on invalid plists

bug#27726: 26.0.50; plist functions give confusing errors on invalid plists

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

(plist-put '(:foo 1 :bar) :zot 2)

Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument listp (:foo 1 :bar))
  plist-put((:foo 1 :bar) :zot 2)
  eval((plist-put '(:foo 1 :bar) :zot 2) nil)
  elisp--eval-last-sexp(nil)
  eval-last-sexp(nil)
  funcall-interactively(eval-last-sexp nil)
  call-interactively(eval-last-sexp nil nil)
  command-execute(eval-last-sexp)

The error seems to say that '(:foo 1 :bar) isn't a list.  But the
problem is that it's not a valid plist, since it has an odd number of
elements.

So I think there should be a different error being signalled here.  (And
there isn't really a backwards compatibility issue here of introducing a
new error symbol: Emacs 26.1 started signalling errors for these lists;
previously it was fine having odd plists.)


In GNU Emacs 26.0.50 (build 1, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.22.11)
 of 2017-07-16 built on mouse
Repository revision: 45892db6f53cccc045da9c7215b467617c067f04
Windowing system distributor 'The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.11903000
System Description:	Ubuntu 17.04


-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#27726: 26.0.50; plist functions give confusing errors on invalid plists

[Eli Zaretskii]

unblock 24655 by 27726
thanks

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 21:50:27 +0200
> 
> 
> (plist-put '(:foo 1 :bar) :zot 2)
> 
> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument listp (:foo 1 :bar))
>   plist-put((:foo 1 :bar) :zot 2)
>   eval((plist-put '(:foo 1 :bar) :zot 2) nil)
>   elisp--eval-last-sexp(nil)
>   eval-last-sexp(nil)
>   funcall-interactively(eval-last-sexp nil)
>   call-interactively(eval-last-sexp nil nil)
>   command-execute(eval-last-sexp)
> 
> The error seems to say that '(:foo 1 :bar) isn't a list.  But the
> problem is that it's not a valid plist, since it has an odd number of
> elements.
> 
> So I think there should be a different error being signalled here.  (And
> there isn't really a backwards compatibility issue here of introducing a
> new error symbol: Emacs 26.1 started signalling errors for these lists;
> previously it was fine having odd plists.)

Would someone please look into this bug?

In any case, I don't see why this should block Emacs 26.1, so I'm
unblocking it.

Thanks.

bug#27726: 26.0.50; plist functions give confusing errors on invalid plists

[Philipp Stephani]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1153 bytes --]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> schrieb am Sa., 2. Sep. 2017 um 14:46 Uhr:

> unblock 24655 by 27726
> thanks
>
> > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> > Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 21:50:27 +0200
> >
> >
> > (plist-put '(:foo 1 :bar) :zot 2)
> >
> > Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument listp (:foo 1 :bar))
> >   plist-put((:foo 1 :bar) :zot 2)
> >   eval((plist-put '(:foo 1 :bar) :zot 2) nil)
> >   elisp--eval-last-sexp(nil)
> >   eval-last-sexp(nil)
> >   funcall-interactively(eval-last-sexp nil)
> >   call-interactively(eval-last-sexp nil nil)
> >   command-execute(eval-last-sexp)
> >
> > The error seems to say that '(:foo 1 :bar) isn't a list.  But the
> > problem is that it's not a valid plist, since it has an odd number of
> > elements.
> >
> > So I think there should be a different error being signalled here.  (And
> > there isn't really a backwards compatibility issue here of introducing a
> > new error symbol: Emacs 26.1 started signalling errors for these lists;
> > previously it was fine having odd plists.)
>
> Would someone please look into this bug?
>

I've installed commit  71766a45f1 to improve the message.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1672 bytes --]

bug#27726: 26.0.50; plist functions give confusing errors on invalid plists

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 19:10:47 +0000
> Cc: 27726-done@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> I've installed commit 71766a45f1 to improve the message.

Thanks.