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: emacs-29 8bf4cdcf79: Avoid recursive process filters in lisp/jsonrpc.el (bug#60088) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 09:56:49 -0500 Message-ID: References: <167118072395.30479.8819833637573037468@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20221216085204.43B07C04961@vcs2.savannah.gnu.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="5157"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 16 15:57:46 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 1p6C9g-0001Bz-KB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 15:57:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p6C8w-0002Fm-CL; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 09:56:58 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p6C8u-0002A2-TY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 09:56:56 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p6C8t-0001rn-1C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 09:56:56 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2A73544091E; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 09:56:52 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B13D34408FE; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 09:56:50 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1671202610; bh=O+Jp5F74c+nmi0ZeZm8lobm/Vfy5NRvJk0oNapYrub4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=lYA6LbHdEezHvyrE0S8pqC3h7jZJvqw+jHt+UCY+/McdkWyLNQ2/ZPvaWO3GmEFxj aFIkLaQe4Q8eBG608tGwD4rBSraDQNGxWZkPg1oFvxWV0TyFUzVhwGVZo79YseFGc5 egl1Z7SX/Ot5lRk9MLtLxUsVkJMxZCKB2Mjz9XE7VfzHoExj7t0p/joKSbQriyI8EJ gFSvOPCjOeYwDKhjbDWp3o0Jakh//ij8OdPzlTagl6Lem8kJC48GUwP82SsXS35xdq 8F1uGCezhe2KLcNoQR85lVODnxfNa1kzRvLL5OZVhFZbVSSXqjhkpK6XeOGuJ2cYyQ kpmFKk/EVR9KA== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.193.52]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EE4A12304A; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 09:56:50 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Jo=E3o_T=E1vora=22's?= message of "Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:46:42 +0000") 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: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:301489 Archived-At: > I thought about that too, but I don't know what other implications > it might have. If it's somehow feasible, isn't it easier to just change > process-send-input to _not_ accept output? That's the > only output-accepting primitive that makes sense to call from > within a process filter (and that's what happened here). I can't > see how sit-for is useful from within a process-filter and neither > accept-process-output. Almost certainly a bug, right? So why > can't we make it so that they just error when called under those > circumstances? To me, the only thing that *is* sure is that recursive invocations of process filters are usually not expected (and because of non-determinism they're usually not guaranteed either), so I'd focus on this. Trying to figure out when `process-send-input` should or shouldn't accept process output (and from which processes) seems a lot more murky. And I know `accept-process-output` can be (and is) used in process filters. I'd be surprised if the same didn't happen for `sit-for`. Stefan