From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#14595: Erroneous composition of lambda in emacs-lisp buffers with prog-prettify-symbols enabled Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:17:36 +0300 Message-ID: <83obb6t4gv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83fvwjvje3.fsf@gnu.org> <83zjuqu5ud.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1371399490 8212 80.91.229.3 (16 Jun 2013 16:18:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 16:18:10 +0000 (UTC) To: 14595@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 16 18:18:09 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 1UoFea-0001J9-TV for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 18:18:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54557 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UoFea-0008PQ-G6 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 12:18:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49178) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UoFeV-0008P5-6O for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 12:18:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UoFeU-0005ZN-5r for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 12:18:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:54305) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UoFeU-0005ZJ-22 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 12:18:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UoFeT-0006LW-MN for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 12:18:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 16:18:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 14595 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.137139947424378 (code B ref -1); Sun, 16 Jun 2013 16:18:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Jun 2013 16:17:54 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48621 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UoFeK-0006L4-Ke for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 12:17:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:47366) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UoFeH-0006Kk-Le for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 12:17:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UoFeB-0005Ww-K7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 12:17:44 -0400 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:35830) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UoFeB-0005Ws-H9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 12:17:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49084) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UoFeA-0008MS-CU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 12:17:43 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UoFe8-0005Wa-E1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 12:17:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:46174) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UoFe8-0005WP-6Z for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 12:17:40 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MOH00800UHPE300@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:17:37 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MOH0081HULCEJ00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:17:37 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:75214 Archived-At: > From: Ted Zlatanov > Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 05:27:50 -0400 > > On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 05:01:48 +0200 Juanma Barranquero wrote: > > JB> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> I wasn't aware of any inconsistent display or scrolling behavior in > >> his description. Juanma, can you repeat that description, which I > >> probably missed? > > JB> With a file containing 1000 identical lines "(lambda (x) x)", the > JB> lambdas that were incorrectly composed depend on the direction you > JB> scroll the buffer. Scrolling from the beginning towards the end (page > JB> by page), I got about 30 errors, always in the same positions > JB> (distributed non-uniformly). If you repeat the experiment, but go > JB> immediately to the end and scroll up, you got a different number of > JB> errors (double or so) at different possitions, also consistents from > JB> one run to the next. > > JB> I suppose that's what Ted is talking about. > > Yes. Again, I don't know if this is a problem worth fixing, I was just > clarifying how it's inconsistent depending on the scroll direction. It's not a problem. There's no symmetry in how the display engine handles scrolling up and down, so it exposes portions of the buffer to font-lock differently depending on the direction of the scroll.