From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master 9ade7ea: Fix Eldoc problem when loading on Emacs 26.3 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:16:17 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20200710004934.18557.69586@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20200710004936.2935520A27@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <0veepjz719.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87lfjrdzna.fsf@gmail.com> <87h7ufdtyr.fsf@gmail.com> <87a707docl.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="6141"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Glenn Morris , Noam Postavsky , emacs-devel To: =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 11 00:17:27 2020 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 1ju1Kg-0001T0-03 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 00:17:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58998 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ju1Kf-0005hk-0k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:17:25 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36728) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ju1Jg-0005Fd-3m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:16:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:9598) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ju1Je-0000cJ-3Y; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:16:23 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A8A78441203; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:16:20 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1E6574411F8; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:16:19 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1594419379; bh=mcCQgCGc2TacgeSEyyg4RjZoK8kJ/sWElAWmdNg2SMw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=kVDwvQrEupJMIqUcj9e9fEGfTsPthtnluM4nLmkZht47a4+iZdHtbJjVtvNu16p85 yjCF8QHL4clQ9C6ZewWdkWQgJDkmd5OhkdbaBFjNbOZve5RRchVK7SeUuJrn8P9j+o 00/enjiGSgcm58u6r2zqiCpC7e4kXxHm9kecJo23vVkj8ul8lJYKeVXPSChdXMgAI8 GytWT/A5XutfioX2eyjMJaXSYbtKpkIOXCWqeb26nSLMY2RkJQMwSzmLqWpOFOiZav jCtKodkomsfRQTWDhi1M6bYoGi8i3oD5xVYAj6Cwh0ifPWehtBS/hG/bauKiImTZZd uHR52DNOdY8jQ== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [157.52.23.7]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC88C120B19; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:16:18 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87a707docl.fsf@gmail.com> (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Jo=E3o_T=E1vo?= =?windows-1252?Q?ra=22's?= message of "Fri, 10 Jul 2020 22:58:18 +0100") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/07/10 17:29:13 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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:252846 Archived-At: >>>> Maybe come up with a better idea, or maybe, like Stefan suggests, don't >>>> make it an alias at all, just deprecate it and keep using it instead of >>>> eldoc-documentation-strategy when we find it to be bound. >>> That sort of works, but it forces extensions that do want to >>> "Package-Require" eldoc to remember to unbind >>> eldoc-documentation-function if they are loaded on older Emacs versions, >>> which is undesirable. No. If they're only written for the old API they set `eldoc-documentation-function` and live in blissful ignorance of what they miss. If they're only written for the new API, they add-hook to `eldoc-documentation-functions` and live in bliss. And if they want to support both they do (if (boundp 'eldoc-documentation-functions) (add-hook 'eldoc-documentation-functions ...) (setq eldoc-documentation-function ...)) >> Maybe use a rule like: >> >> (if (and (buffer-local-p 'eldoc-documentation-function) >> (not (buffer-local-p 'eldoc-documentation-functions))) >> >> > > Sounds a bit complicated for me, especially since there's already a > eldoc--supported-p which does similar heuristics. But that's one of the other benefits. It lets us distinguish in `eldoc--supported-p` the case where `eldoc-documentation-strategy` was set from the case where `eldoc-documentation-function` was set. > Wouldn't it break in some older Emacs version that loads the new Eldoc > and has some global value in eldoc-documentation-functions (say, > a spell-checking eldoc backend)? The above `buffer-local-p` tests would be in eldoc.el, not in the client packages, so I don't see what scenario you're worried about. And of course the presence of a global value doesn't affect `buffer-local-p` anyway, so ... I guess I must be missing something? Stefan