From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#50946: Emacs-28: Inadequate coding in hack-elisp-shorthands Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2021 13:57:21 +0000 Message-ID: References: <831r54einq.fsf@gnu.org> <871r54xnds.fsf@gmail.com> <87ee933bcj.fsf@gmail.com> <83pmsnbnci.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="15610"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 50946@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 02 15:58:11 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mWfWk-0003q6-O1 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 02 Oct 2021 15:58:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37630 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mWfWi-0000kb-QR for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 02 Oct 2021 09:58:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42758) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mWfWb-0000kS-W3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Oct 2021 09:58:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:48562) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mWfWb-0007q0-OO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Oct 2021 09:58:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mWfWb-0003fd-NN for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Oct 2021 09:58:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Alan Mackenzie Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2021 13:58:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 50946 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 50946-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B50946.163318305114065 (code B ref 50946); Sat, 02 Oct 2021 13:58:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 50946) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Oct 2021 13:57:31 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60108 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mWfW7-0003en-9e for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 02 Oct 2021 09:57:31 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:42521 helo=mail.muc.de) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mWfW5-0003eR-18 for 50946@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 02 Oct 2021 09:57:29 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 12950 invoked by uid 3782); 2 Oct 2021 13:57:22 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15ae2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.90.226]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sat, 02 Oct 2021 15:57:22 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 14222 invoked by uid 1000); 2 Oct 2021 13:57:21 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83pmsnbnci.fsf@gnu.org> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:216151 Archived-At: Hello, Eli. On Sat, Oct 02, 2021 at 15:52:29 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2021 12:38:58 +0000 > > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 50946@debbugs.gnu.org > > From: Alan Mackenzie > > I think that with hack-elisp-shorthands having been coded without > > attention to detail, there is a good chance the rest of this feature is > > similarly lacking in attention to detail, which is why I asked for an > > independent person to check. Eli seems to think this isn't a problem. > If you want me to take your critique seriously, please be specific: > what are the aspects of that function that you think lack attention to > detail, and what detail? The five aspects I enumerated on my original bug report. Not checking for a properly formatted Local Variables: section, not checking for lower-case in that variable being searched for, not going back at least 3000 characters, etc. Additionally, the original code didn't check for a page boundary. That, to me, is detail that should have been checked, even tested, but clearly wasn't. > We _are_ having a technical discussion of a Lisp program, and quite a > short one at that, right? If so, it shouldn't be hard for you to > provide the details of what worries you there. I think I did that in the original bug report. I also stated in detail in one of the followups why the patch the Joćo committed didn't entirely fix the bug. It took me quite a bit of time to put that followup together. There were 6 individual bugs in hack-elisp-shorthands (the five in my original bug report plus not checking for a page boundary). They weren't difficult complicated things, they were things obvious to me just perusing the code. They ought to have been obvious to Joćo, too. This was unusually bad coding. There's been no (public) explanation for this from Joćo, though I suggested one to him. What worries me is that this lack of attention to detail might extend to the new code in lread.c, or the documentation page. I still think somebody who isn't Joćo and isn't me should check this. I think I saw you making a small amendment to the code in lread.c, so maybe you have already checked that bit. I worry, to a lesser degree, it is not entirely clear whether setting the elisp-shorthands variable in the first line of a short file should be valid or not. I don't think the current hack-elisp-shorthands is careful enough about this. > And while at that, please try to distinguish between general problems > of hack-local-variables--find-variables, which affect all of Emacs, > and hack-elisp-shorthands, which is specific to this feature. I think all the things I've said in this bug report are about hack-elisp-shorthands and the other new code/doc in this feature. > > You haven't fixed this bug. When you first closed it this afternoon, I > > assumed you did so by accident, since the -done@debbugs.gnu.org was on > > the Cc:. Your recent closing of this unfixed bug was clearly > > deliberate. > Which bug (or bugs) is that? Bug #50946. I have pointed out unfixed edge cases in this thread. > > I'm not going to get into a childish game with you, opening and closing > > this bug repeatedly. Instead, I invite you to calm down, think it over > > over the next few days, and consider whether such unfixed bugs are > > really the right thing for Emacs. > I don't think you are calm enough, either. I'm not. When I submit a bug report, I expect it and me to be treated with respect. That hasn't happened in this case. > So the invitation to calm down goes both ways here. Please focus on > technical issues and leave ad-hominem out of this, okay? Is this bug to be fixed completely, or are the edge cases just to be ignored as unimportant? That is the current technical issue as I see it. I really don't want to fix the bug myself, but am prepared to do so if nobody else is. If you think the bug indeed needs completely fixing, please reopen it - there's no point in me trying to reopen it again. If you don't, just leave things the way they are. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).