From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_R=c3=b6hler?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Certain numbers of special forms cause changing behaviour on function calls in --batch Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 19:20:50 +0200 Message-ID: <495b6239-364c-473e-9df5-7fc53962438a@online.de> References: <8760stvwzp.fsf@web.de> <83r3bevhfc.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467307007 5723 80.91.229.3 (30 Jun 2016 17:16:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:16:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: me@wilfred.me.uk, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 30 19:16:38 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bIfZo-0005Uk-OV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 19:16:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51776 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIfZo-0006E7-1g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:16:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56547) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIfZd-0006C3-GS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:16:22 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIfZY-00067A-7d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:16:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([217.72.192.75]:63819) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIfZX-00066p-T5; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:16:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.178.35] ([95.119.231.19]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MXYog-1anGv42dew-00WXkU; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 19:16:12 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.1.0 In-Reply-To: <83r3bevhfc.fsf@gnu.org> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:xaI0MllYpZ9W6M++mk1l11fEPlUx/Dwar2OpB+3NO1Z0BR3esFo dRKedkLPwR92lJuOYsubhKFXraHZMbFnaNuJXPsruxDZwQUbdnN0lVxHU4utB+M/EHEHI0h ktO4bNi/kkVgWFRDni6jE6MZeqYI/qx5VNPUtQgwU5q3PCWHkAs7fq/bFlf8nWE9kw2CD+Q AomfaIxuz1tUuLnb24L9A== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:KkP7OSN2Cyo=:6oF64h82FcWV6f9w53Bvi+ gWby8zx/9GY0vzKqLUzZb59cSeE05HOouDG9vQcYfaJLaO4GsDdFW+S0KbtbfN5YGgJTZ6FIk CBQ/eE3tdSX4HHiqksWm5hFRe1+lSS5mrXRQG+b6DP8bYNzNCdRyyAbwsGwt4M95hmG0m9fe8 ruRGNh/2UrspMLjWAxg+EqwYWxOYff7OpoDTVmo9u4oBfZFoBHl9UeySslpCTL0P+Y0JH6iJo 4VkiS1NkBCwYwevDKRkbUCG++c7xI0idH+19dIkqijD4rUWfgM7SlPHOxnjnTlAh2yHYNEWoo YDWGwAl5PkvwLyV7Ym9y+O1y2CskBpBv2poGyUBDMT1nLUeRpf8pgpUhxJ4CIMLGFmRLcg25D fUSIH5jTqxWhf/N009JJZRusvxKfesMV7IBkRtCMJv3xziRP6PC6pPKe/eWwkObw0GQ+2LTr3 dyE2Wul1umInZdkcOLxPvyp8cPomPTJ7qq4/+NVA8HgHkKleU6YsSSucE2kboeUcSy29omqyu Pmz00roB979DUyWNLxt2Jt02DzT+GeB77qKXcabX4x07ZjKU0fWmQj01wagoUecLd/j6rCKUx EADEwsiV0yHiSDfiwgeRWaY8RPI2LJV01y73UTqnbWmgwdnUCFBD98G7o/bjjslbfuf6iTfxh TiI6QFVy4E47J4R+KA2256HPhxBqU3CUimgqOMU7wvQzyva2MazhHBGK7BHjIFxRnTd22mToH KTjyjF+j5VOw49Ka X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 217.72.192.75 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:205004 Archived-At: On 30.06.2016 17:13, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Andreas Röhler >> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 07:58:57 +0200 >> Cc: Wilfred Hughes >> >> A plausible guess. `move-end-of-line' is obviously designed for >> interactive use. It deals with var `line-move-visual' for example. > If that's the reason, setting line-move-visual to nil in the > interactive session will produce the same "buggy" behavior. Does it? > >> Are there reasons not to employ `end-of-line'? > Compare their doc strings, and you will see the reason. One moves to > the visual end, the other to the logical end. > > This bug, whatever it is, will not be solved by guessing. It will be > solved by a reproducible recipe and debugging. AFAIU parts of the display engine obviously work different in batch mode At http://debbugs.gnu.org/db/16/16853.html it reads: " The point of the example was to show that pos-visible-in-window-p doesn't work normally in batch mode. " Not sure if that must be a bug. It might make sense and being the purpose of batch, not to provide real buffer visibility. Hence a visual line might not exist for the very same reasons then - at least if I had to design a batch mode ;)