From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?=C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n_?= =?UTF-8?Q?N=C4=9Bmec?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#65267: 30.0.50; modifying debug-ignored-errors during startup with --debug-init is broken, bug#65267: 30.0.50; modifying debug-ignored-errors during startup with --debug-init is broken Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 18:29:58 +0200 Message-ID: <20230817182958+0200.925365-stepnem@smrk.net> References: <20230813095429+0200.5928-stepnem@smrk.net> <20230813190826+0200.765169-stepnem@smrk.net> <83v8de581n.fsf@gnu.org> <83h6ox6bnk.fsf@gnu.org> <20230817161619+0200.191251-stepnem@smrk.net> <20230813095429+0200.5928-stepnem@smrk.net> <20230813095429+0200.5928-stepnem@smrk.net> <20230813190826+0200.765169-stepnem@smrk.net> <83v8de581n.fsf@gnu.org> <83h6ox6bnk.fsf@gnu.org> <20230817161619+0200.191251-stepnem@smrk.net> <83bkf568rf.fsf@gnu.org> <83bkf568rf.fsf@gnu.org> <20230817175259+0200.372333-stepnem@smrk.net> <837cpt64d8.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="33335"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Notmuch/0.37 (https://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/30.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Cc: 65267@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, npostavs@users.sourceforge.net To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 17 18:31:31 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-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 1qWfuE-0008Su-1q for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 18:31:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qWftp-0007vF-L2; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 12:31:05 -0400 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 1qWftn-0007uo-TR for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 12:31:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qWftm-0007eJ-74 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 12:31:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1qWftl-0005Xp-Pt for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 12:31:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?=C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n_?= =?UTF-8?Q?N=C4=9Bmec?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 16:31:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 65267 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 65267-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B65267.169228981021179 (code B ref 65267); Thu, 17 Aug 2023 16:31:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 65267) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Aug 2023 16:30:10 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45418 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1qWfsv-0005VW-Tb for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 12:30:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.smrk.net ([45.76.87.244]:41517) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1qWfsr-0005UP-IQ for 65267@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 12:30:07 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=smrk.net; s=20221002; t=1692289799; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=e1sFrRcLdN/KWAdEGnUPYw075S9Cn8Xfo08W4iR/ksI=; b=oQfoL7LggpPMmbCgCF87Lm4SyMDhq+CnpdU9w3gItcIQCR2l4/jlAwnekn7VnZ9cWkk16v WOZvo/pL+CuI7RGNvvN/itEj08lpkgKVJv736eAoCdpQ1lbdN+setG9B3bGmrW97/3ZV+3 5NLnlE0NctpTKUJi7fdy1QQ9Pitcf96IfzLEXRpChzyp1YdUzksCrxboP3KGQPa7RDEQ8R qsnLAmEGjzivvB4wDglr6NOaTaFYYIqAgvvVuRDAUKNdQ/8+87XDkVbSf8I9jip2eOhkMz bgOBBuq95JC4WDvEJeUFnCP/3zpv1CNSBl50F2idxbcuFb/2v1vTXqDnBBm3BA== Original-Received: from localhost ( [192.168.5.2]) by smrk (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id ab811cf7 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Thu, 17 Aug 2023 18:29:59 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <837cpt64d8.fsf@gnu.org> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:267677 Archived-At: On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 19:05:55 +0300 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n N=C4=9Bmec >> Cc: 65267@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, >> npostavs@users.sourceforge.net >> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:52:59 +0200 >>=20 >> As you said, debug-ignored-errors is a user variable. So some people >> are likely to change it, and some (most?) of those people will do that >> from their init file. I don't see how adding vs removing is any >> different in that respect. > > I agree, I'm just saying that removing from the list, and using > --debug-init at the same time is beyond obscure. Why? >> As for --debug-init, why would anyone (who knows about that option and >> cares about their setup) routinely start Emacs *without* it? > > I would actually ask the opposite: why would someone run with that > option except when they need to debug their init files? It's a > debugging option. Because in the no-errors case it costs the user virtually nothing, and in case of errors you don't have to restart with --debug-init: you have the backtrace right there. > I'm quite sure that if you poll Emacs users, you will find that the > vast majority doesn't routinely use that option. I don't share your confidence, one way or the other; you might well be right (that's why I added the parenthetical). > Exactly like most of the users don't routinely run Emacs under GDB. Running under GDB is significantly more complex (esp. for a casual user) than adding a CLI option, so I don't think that is a good comparison. >> >> Have you considered my humble suggestion of reverting to pre-bug#64163 >> >> state and simply removing end-of-file from the default value of >> >> debug-ignored-errors? >> > >> > Yes. This cannot fly, since we had end-of-file there for a long time >> > (I see it in Emacs 20). >>=20 >> I only wish someone would put forth an actual argument for having >> end-of-file on debug-ignored-errors. > > It no longer matters, since that ship has sailed in Sep 1996, if not > earlier. Even GNU Emacs is amenable to such reassessments. Options and/or their defaults change every release, I don't see how debug-ignored-errors is any different (if anything, this change would seem relatively minor). >> I agree backward compatibility/preserving behavior is important, but I >> hope you'll agree that some behavior changes are more >> serious/visible/disruptive/whatever than others, and I'd argue that in >> that sense, messing with user option modification during startup is a >> worse change than removing end-of-file from debug-ignored-errors. > > If we "mess" with the options and restore them back to their > user-defined value at the end of startup, the "mess" is not that awful > a felony. During startup, Emacs "messes" with some options anyway, > e.g., those that need to be re-evaluated more than once, to support > the user changing the environment via init file settings. So it isn't > like there's no precedent for "messing" with user options. > > And let me remind you that this bug report was triggered by "messing" > with user options by a certain package. > >> So if we're again back to blessing the breakage, I suggest it at least >> be documented. > > I don't think I have a clear idea of what aspects of this you think we > need to document. Please elaborate. I thought it was obvious, but I see I should have been more precise again, I apologize and reformulate: the "mess" here isn't with the option per se, but with its customization (even though the end result is, of course, a wrong (not user-intended) value of the option per se). Your patch doesn't improve that situation: if a user changes debug-ignored-errors during initialization, they might end up (silently!) with an unexpected value. Don't you agree that makes debug-ignored-errors special enough to need documenting? --=20 =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n