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 695f679: Remove ; ; ; ###tramp-autoload cookie from Tramp defcustoms (Bug#47063) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:39:54 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20210313133546.6042.78482@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20210313133547.AA06C20B2E@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <877dma1yfv.fsf@tcd.ie> <87sg4ygmd9.fsf@gmx.de> <87zgz5uc0k.fsf@tcd.ie> <87tup0kxeg.fsf@tcd.ie> <878s6ba96u.fsf@gnus.org> <87k0pu887d.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="23459"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: "Basil L. Contovounesios" , Michael Albinus , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 26 14:41:54 2021 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 1lPmin-0005yX-Ei for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 14:41:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50002 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lPmim-0002Ai-GD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:41:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43442) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lPmh2-0000kE-W1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:40:05 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:21931) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lPmh0-0007nd-En for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:40:04 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A3921809DC; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:39:56 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 514208065D; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:39:55 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1616765995; bh=KfzUos5f3n/wvrwM/x2SXuLhI1XXOTfC5y0yAx8pom4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Y96nu8lOnPWqNTvf3yy7tWG7CEbwzfdk+5TiArqMWO5J7EIt4AbBCdLky0L4qm3gx h04x50hM93Lof+4IPnq8POnGByCjzaRkyIGCY2KkEvnlpCpQeU4RLgUPyd0AIID+eu MDQ/8Hgq/1+Dfq06OqwgfpKy/aHqiBFp2sk0UIqrSKkcle1KsWTfUQLdumSI8+Sl/r 3C1dTSmMwD2nu6w8ImfPYvYH4XC7QZWKLd64hXWBdnfuRR1XaMjFAOwE3QOcX+IeVi jPQPbdLO9seC2FngZZ/HJ6qg72/EAXmNFIrddnrA1Q7zrB9Od3Y+EYCOjtWZh6tYAj Y/L9aWhz4FSug== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.43.249]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E1ED12016F; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:39:55 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87k0pu887d.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Fri, 26 Mar 2021 12:28:54 +0100") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca 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 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:267068 Archived-At: > Yup; if it's hoisted out of the loop, there'd be no performance impact, > but it would make it less useful, though -- as with erroring out, you'd > get no completion. It'd make more sense to just keep the current (not-filtered) completion list, so you still get completion to work. > So I don't oppose catching errors here, really -- I'm just wondering why > we're designing for allowing broken code in this particular > circumstance. Do we expect these code snippets to break for some > reason? I think it's because such errors have already occurred, and not being able to `M-x` just because of a silly mistake in a "secondary" feature is rather frustrating. Also, this feature runs code from "all" packages, so it is inherently exposed to a lot of potential messups. IOW, I agree that there's no hard-and-fast reason to do that, but I think it can make a substantial difference to the end users because it protects them from very minor but potentially common bugs. Stefan