From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs master + org Wrong type argument: number-or-marker-p Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 18:06:50 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83bkt42ifq.fsf@gnu.org> <87a68ovw0b.fsf@posteo.net> <835yjc2c6f.fsf@gnu.org> <8335eg2ao9.fsf@gnu.org> <875yjbexde.fsf@posteo.net> <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="22703"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= , philipk@posteo.net, silent2600@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 01 20:08:49 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 1oIZqS-0005kf-NL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 20:08:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36516 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oIZqR-0002Wz-7B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 14:08:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44254) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oIZoo-0001nY-Co for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 14:07:06 -0400 Original-Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:60750) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oIZob-0007Ic-D9; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 14:07:06 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20220101; t=1659377211; bh=L3FtWlbaMiyvgavZPqSGzGzG9Sr91VFb3zwbmkFJSgs=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=BWu6JSl/mErgQBPkJp4n7ugrNlHodpoVyHQxsd2ml4yPYW7QMph1ohTUrbx4yPymq n9FkxDlQPzmTIXlmdALGmEFu4y754okpGlsiY/6c0tohNRlyngNi2qq/h3CQaQvymG So6tLCXKnLbsMYeQ/7SzZ3WBCyBC/Wmk2yxTdUXricOgN0MKVYb3L8YbclTe213HDh okghB2jpI0XFC0dfyECyolPn1V3QNq4a7h0Rk79vmAShU7fj+C98tJezWiMR1b2M86 wUT4ewj08hapvCcQZBNHPYfG+u1d/o9mUvv4A4aGi/FAmyrDonrUMHhsNjEE3/pYbu n48+CfIhKicpA== In-Reply-To: <83sfmf26b6.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=95.142.160.155; envelope-from=gregory@heytings.org; helo=heytings.org X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:292959 Archived-At: >> Frankly I'd recommend that the whole change be reverted because it >> performs unbalanced specbinds which we expect functions not to do. I >> don't think it can be salvaged in its current form; better back it out >> and let the author submit a new proposal for how to handle the problem. > > Gregory, we don't really need to be able to make such "locked" narrowing > from Lisp, do we? > We don't, indeed, at least not now. > > If we don't, my suggestion is to make a 3-arg C function whose guts is > the current code of Fnarrow_to_region, and then have Fnarrow_to_region > call that with the last argument nil. Then the changes in the byte > compiler, byte-interpreter, and native-compiler can be reverted. > I'll do that. But that wouldn't solve the "unbalanced specbinds" Mattias mentions. Is it not allowed to specbind in a function and to unbind in its caller? I don't see why it wouldn't, but I may be missing something.