From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stefan Monnier " Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Emacs Lisp: Problem with nested condition-case and catch in byte compiled code Date: 18 Nov 2002 19:08:06 -0500 Organization: Yale University Sender: help-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <5l8yzqzajd.fsf@rum.cs.yale.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1037664989 14877 80.91.224.249 (19 Nov 2002 00:16:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 00:16:29 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18Dw44-0003rp-00 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 01:16:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18Dw3q-0000pr-00; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:16:14 -0500 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.ycc.yale.edu!rum.cs.yale.edu!rum.cs.yale.edu Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 12 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: rum.cs.yale.edu User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: rum.cs.yale.edu X-Original-Trace: 18 Nov 2002 19:08:06 -0500, rum.cs.yale.edu Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:107180 Original-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:3734 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.help:3734 >>>>> "Greg" == Greg Hill writes: > A bit more experimentation shows that nesting a catch inside a catch or > a condition-case inside a condition-case causes the same problem. > I'm beginning to think I must have stumbled across a bug in either the byte > compiler or the byte-code interpreter. Or more likely in the `interactive-p' function which does a lot of ad-hoc parsing of the call-stack and is thus susceptible to funny things. Stefan