bug#41781: 27.0.91; [PATCH] Eldoc describes the wrong function when reading an expression from the minibuffer

[Daniel Koning <dk@danielkoning.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2425 bytes --]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> When eldoc is activated in the minibuffer and uses the elisp backend
> because we're reading an elisp expression, then the syntax-table should
> also be set accordingly, indeed (not only for eldoc but also for
> forward-sexp, ...).
>
> Looks like a bug in the corresponding function (`read-expression` or nearby).

OK, I've attached another patch for that function.

>>> For one, the elisp-mode.el function `elisp--current-symbol' isn't
>>> wrapped in a `with-syntax-table', unlike other similar definitions
>>> in the same file. I think anyone invoking this function could
>>> reasonably expect it to observe elisp syntax, so that's what my tiny
>>> patch addresses.
>
> It's probably OK to do it as in your patch, yes.
> 
If you change `read--expression', I don't know whether you'll think it
makes sense to add the extra overhead to `elisp--current-symbol'. It
does have a silent dependency on the syntax table, which is arguably an
inherent bug. But it's an internal function which only (right now) gets
called in one place.

> I'm pretty sure just calling the major will break something.
> I can't offhand tell you what, tho.  Writing the comment was faster than
> trying it out and then seeing how to fix the corresponding problems.

I can confirm that it suffers from the fairly significant drawback of
not working at all. Since the major replaces the minibuffer-specific
keymap, nothing ends up bound to `exit-minibuffer', so you can't even
enter an expression (or do anything else, like history paging). You
could bind `overriding-local-map' at the top of the function, but with
that and the syntax table you're getting close to implementing a de
facto new mode inside the de jure old one. At that point it might as
well be a real custom major mode, as you suggested. And then there's the
possibility that some people's `emacs-lisp-mode-hook' might contain code
that assumes it's in a real buffer and misbehaves in the minibuffer.

On the other hand, you could do what eshell does for `eshell-command'
and turn on its major mode in the minibuffer while selectively binding
C-j, C-m, M-p, etc., inside the setup hook. I don't like this design at
all: if I were to make changes to my `minibuffer-local-map' bindings,
eshell would silently ignore them. Any custom mode for minibuffer input
should inherit an existing minibuffer keymap, in my book at least.

Daniel


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: read--expression patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1283 bytes --]

From 7b3a19b3616b3a1c8dbd26673f2034bc6b19ebed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Daniel Koning <dk@danielkoning.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 19:03:20 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] lisp/simple.el (read--expression): Set syntax table.

Use `emacs-lisp-mode-syntax-table' when reading a Lisp expression from
the minibuffer.

Copyright-paperwork-exempt: yes
---
 lisp/simple.el | 7 +++++--
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lisp/simple.el b/lisp/simple.el
index ea16d1400c..8e71432f9c 100644
--- a/lisp/simple.el
+++ b/lisp/simple.el
@@ -1608,8 +1608,11 @@ read--expression
   (let ((minibuffer-completing-symbol t))
     (minibuffer-with-setup-hook
         (lambda ()
-          ;; FIXME: call emacs-lisp-mode (see also
-          ;; `eldoc--eval-expression-setup')?
+          ;; FIXME: instead of just applying the syntax table, maybe
+          ;; use a special major mode tailored to reading Lisp
+          ;; expressions from the minibuffer? (`emacs-lisp-mode'
+          ;; doesn't preserve the necessary keybindings.)
+          (set-syntax-table emacs-lisp-mode-syntax-table)
           (add-hook 'completion-at-point-functions
                     #'elisp-completion-at-point nil t)
           (run-hooks 'eval-expression-minibuffer-setup-hook))
-- 
2.20.1