From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs master + org Wrong type argument: number-or-marker-p Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2022 22:15:37 +0300 Message-ID: <83v8ra5uee.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83zggn2a0c.fsf@gnu.org> <03AF0800-5252-429C-86BC-85DF9DF449F9@acm.org> <83tu6v27yh.fsf@gnu.org> <6F871C02-AC26-4B89-B64B-E9F4ACACDBE7@acm.org> <83sfmf26b6.fsf@gnu.org> <835yja7o7j.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="34948"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: gregory@heytings.org, mattiase@acm.org, philipk@posteo.net, silent2600@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 02 21:17:33 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1oIxOX-0008rb-Hc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 21:17:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42360 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oIxOW-0003Q6-AZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 15:17:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45774) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oIxMp-00029r-KN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 15:15:47 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:52000) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oIxMn-0003Aq-J7; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 15:15:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=XhKjnW9mMKz83gQfCRSljDHpLl/ef6WQFstocyiI2Gg=; b=DsCXn8MEMqNV TBc/+vgeOu6LTGkPpJBOQRO9LAle/2cjV9fnhh2PCsK12hJGY+9pUNcy8gUicAcEam1A2/sOwAb2o DOBkpVemf8ZYrsPFoES5M7vpwH9uQTtf/6KESG87n0S0JkephG/tv1OtbkmkS+6uNLeu/inABSzzy GOplHns7gsuRBHCvu/2ySkwzO3Y+1+7YjsR9AAvFvU81YGATpabFrEHJV2aGUfpz1NrKQ/yfRqZaH 6pGTVfEwMXjVWq3Z81bsTbt8csnMFKE696F/wucf0AyRvAoJ+K8LoR2t/imgyc+NwkwobR8IcwKI5 dLzA3eZznqaqOvW7lJm+xQ==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=1928 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oIxMn-000801-2i; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 15:15:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Alan Mackenzie on Tue, 2 Aug 2022 18:59:07 +0000) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:292996 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2022 18:59:07 +0000 > Cc: gregory@heytings.org, mattiase@acm.org, philipk@posteo.net, > silent2600@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > This happens only in buffers with very long lines, where we want to > > prevent Lisp programs called from low-level facilities, like > > redisplay, to scan the entire buffer. > > So Lisp programs will "only" fail to work in buffers with long lines. I > protest at this. Not any Lisp programs, only those invoked from those hooks. And they won't necessarily fail. In fact, we have yet to see a single serious failure due to these measures. In general, the restriction is large enough to satisfy any reasonable processing, so it shouldn't matter unless the Lisp program misbehaves. > There surely could have been a solution to whatever > the problem was that respected the integrity of the Lisp machine. Theoretically, yes. But in practice, Emacs had this problem since 22 years ago, and no solution presented itself. > There is not even a return code to say that a byte-code instruction > has failed to work. A program can always test point-min and point-max. > Surely there should be an error signalled if such happens, since the > program is broken after ignoring an instruction. It isn't broken, though. > Ignoring what a programmer programmed cannot be a good strategy. It isn't ignored, just restricted: we don't let such programs run amok high and low in these extra-long lines. > I protest also that this wasn't discussed openly on emacs-devel. It is being discussed, here and on the bug tracker, for about a month now.