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.help Subject: Re: Undo defalias Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2023 19:05:39 -0500 Message-ID: References: <878rgioa5f.fsf@telefonica.net> <87v8jhddul.fsf@telefonica.net> <7c6ec4cae3090ac235da@heytings.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="21926"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 04 01:06:22 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1pYFPq-0005SP-1R for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Mar 2023 01:06:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pYFPI-0001JQ-QB; Fri, 03 Mar 2023 19:05:48 -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 1pYFPH-0001J9-HJ for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Mar 2023 19:05:47 -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 1pYFPF-0007sA-St for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Mar 2023 19:05:47 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4487880B11; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 19:05:42 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C61F7803B4; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 19:05:40 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1677888340; bh=hE4posoArliQZQA3ouSIKB4HihrE4Sgo8ZvljraSidg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Z0hDRft4xD2PMcDqKbV/MrANyW+SKZTSKBruHoSKy74exOebfH2zVBUxUKvNvGgYP 7BPv+PnldDknJ4dM3Wj+RHR30MszXPRXqi39BBCp6EBgiFSnysrP19H3AppTwhlXj+ RbXQepOKBhYp4lxkvVaOq80kR0BGMy6PGHTiOVjL0bB2hlTBYhzNOqO8BYbmJwZ0DY 5gIrX9kbJEnNZyO20NYBmEOi49sS7QBsJS4RiCRI99ViLy2HzpBk3faYzH6amAWEyM yQwOkF4+TGx3w/IuIYC5j/oOgjObM+w04nLHzEqEZG7zmr/zV0UMA2V/x+6OV/4Cr2 zBQxK9WpGAdNw== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [216.154.34.24]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 978BC12312D; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 19:05:40 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <7c6ec4cae3090ac235da@heytings.org> (Gregory Heytings's message of "Fri, 03 Mar 2023 22:58:54 +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: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.help:142920 Archived-At: > Should we not inhibit-quit around the unwind-form of cl-letf to avoid this? > Otherwise the promise of cl-letf ("On exit, either normally or because of > a `throw' or error, the PLACEs are set back to their original values.") is > not fulfilled. (And yes, I know that, even with inhibit-quit, it is still > possible that a C-g would be processed just before we bind inhibit-quit.) As you point out, we can't solve it in ELisp. Note that this also affects plain old `let` (for dynamically-scoped vars), tho the time-window is shorter. I think we could solve it by using `inhibit-quit` during `unbind_to`, but that's a pretty significant change. It might be The Right Thing to do, tho. Stefan