From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kenichi Handa Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#9496: 24.0.50; Segfault on TAB-only composition Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:10:31 +0900 Message-ID: References: <8739g0tcp5.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1316059894 17987 80.91.229.12 (15 Sep 2011 04:11:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 04:11:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 9496@debbugs.gnu.org, bojohan@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 15 06:11:30 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R43IP-00049b-Sv for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 06:11:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39691 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R43IP-0001xY-0G for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:11:29 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:54909) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R43IM-0001xT-Vs for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:11:27 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R43IM-0003er-2u for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:11:26 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:42868) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R43IM-0003ef-1O for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:11:26 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R43Mn-0005ck-NO; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:16:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Kenichi Handa Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 04:16:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9496 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 9496-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9496.131606012119750 (code B ref 9496); Thu, 15 Sep 2011 04:16:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 9496) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Sep 2011 04:15:21 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R43M6-00057R-FK for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:15:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mx1.aist.go.jp ([150.29.246.133]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R43M1-0004zQ-Dc for 9496@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:15:16 -0400 Original-Received: from rqsmtp1.aist.go.jp (rqsmtp1.aist.go.jp [150.29.254.115]) by mx1.aist.go.jp with ESMTP id p8F4AXQ2020838; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:10:33 +0900 (JST) env-from (handa@m17n.org) Original-Received: from smtp3.aist.go.jp by rqsmtp1.aist.go.jp with ESMTP id p8F4AXxd020697; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:10:33 +0900 (JST) env-from (handa@m17n.org) Original-Received: by smtp3.aist.go.jp with ESMTP id p8F4AV2X022775; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:10:32 +0900 (JST) env-from (handa@m17n.org) In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Monnier on Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:47:32 -0400) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:16:01 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:51173 Archived-At: In article , Stefan Monnier writes: >>> So what is the meaning of the example shown by Bojohan, i.e.: >>> (insert (compose-string "\t")) >>> What is expected from such a 'composition"? > > I currently have no idea. It's just a wrong usage. > I think it would be logical to handle this (as well as "\t\t") in the > same way as the empty string (after all "\t" is a "" with a \t > prepended or appended). That is one way. But I'm not sure that the current code handles the composition component of empty string correctly. :-( Another way is to treat it as the same way as "\t" display property. Composition component of one character string is the same as display property of that one character string. For instance, the following two has the same visual effect: (put-text-property 1 2 'display "a") (compose-region 1 2 "a") --- Kenichi Handa handa@m17n.org