From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Spencer Baugh Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#67837: 29.1.90; inhibit-interaction breaks keyboard macros Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:26:45 -0500 Message-ID: References: <83le9vnvnn.fsf@gnu.org> <83jzpfnsle.fsf@gnu.org> <83h6kjnrzg.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="37887"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: 67837@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 16 23:28:12 2024 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 1rb6gl-0009f7-J5 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:28:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rb6gK-0007MM-CM; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:27:44 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rb6gJ-0007K8-JK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:27:43 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rb6gJ-0004dp-B6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:27:43 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rb6gc-0003v9-FT for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:28:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Spencer Baugh Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 22:28:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 67837 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 67837-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B67837.170812243815016 (code B ref 67837); Fri, 16 Feb 2024 22:28:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 67837) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Feb 2024 22:27:18 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60305 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rb6fs-0003u6-6X for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:27:17 -0500 Original-Received: from mxout6.mail.janestreet.com ([64.215.233.21]:52197) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rb6fn-0003tk-4U for 67837@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:27:15 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Sat, 16 Dec 2023 10:52:45 -0500") DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=janestreet.com; s=waixah; t=1708122405; bh=uxuA6p8Unaecpc1t0AACGWldV5JESLH4xW9P8FAjv30=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=ndN79NH0oYTmf6/iu7jK7VYWYUiJSDTPgKWLv6fmPl+qOLzwXkq/IfFAIgeIWYAcr D2MvO8IT455HFRyfEGW1E2/47DCUEZugl2HmC24V9p8G5dRpD7CUvybrp4IDRKlVYQ ryRtH2UmUKoLY9Zyz7rABXTjzowcgps1USi80wlVde/G7VVcEFhtU92C1it8Z/AdRp 2EEfXZNGwzSiapdfBRMUGnENQJ5+K1FppucPCexA6oWkX8v9ryirYlD4zhg2ld0xOx 7lk+dpjCwS14VHecr0Ogk9VKbAxqfvzDPNDUgRtR88cO4nR7Bh3Hf+LuPFqQBXVcXa HL1a5e4RXuP/A== 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:280108 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: > merge 67837 65291 > thanks > > AFAICT this is the same bug as bug#65291 and the suggested patch is similar. > >> I'm actually tend to think that this proposal is fundamentally wrong, >> not just problematic implementation-wise. Providing input from a >> keyboard macro is still input, and inhibit-interaction=t means asking >> for input signals an error. So your suggestion subverts this feature, >> and therefore it is simply wrong to install something like that. > > I guess it begs the question: what is the purpose of > `inhibit-interaction`? > > The way I see it, the purpose is to avoid Emacs waiting for user input > when we know there's no user, and thus signal an error if we ever get to > this point. > > Basically, I think since our test suite runs just fine in batch, we > should be able to run it with inhibit-interaction=t as well (which > would fix annoying problems when some test fails and ends up waiting > for user input). Yes, I agree. I'm interested in making this possible and willing to put in the work to do it for the Emacs test suite. (since it will help make my own tests reliable) > Note that trying to make the whole test suite runs with > `inhibit-interaction` non-nil is not at all straightforward, sadly: > there are several places where we do call things like `read-event` > without providing any keyboard input (i.e. without > `unread-command-event` or keyboard macros) and instead use a timeout > because this `read-event` is just there to force Emacs to wait while > some external process sends us some reply. Should these be considered > "interaction"? If not, then we open up a whole where some code may call > `read-event` with a relatively short timeout within a tight loop where > the purpose *is* to get user input and where the timeout is only present > to keep something else updated while we wait for that user's input. What places are these? I think that does sound like interaction to me. In which case, could we change those places to not use read-event? Those places would break anyway if they ran inside a user-defined keyboard macro, if I understand correctly, so it's useful to fix them.