Re: master 6d4179957a8: Fix test of whether to insert lexical-binding cookies in custom files

Re: master 6d4179957a8: Fix test of whether to insert lexical-binding cookies in custom files

[Eli Zaretskii]

> +            ;; The previous test `eobp' was written with an appalling
> +            ;; lack of forethought or testing, being easily misled if
> +            ;; the user should have left point at eob in a buffer
> +            ;; visiting the custom file.
> +            (when (eq (point-min) (point-max))

Is this test robust enough?  Why not use buffer-size instead?

Re: master 6d4179957a8: Fix test of whether to insert lexical-binding cookies in custom files

[Andreas Schwab]

On Mai 11 2024, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> +            ;; The previous test `eobp' was written with an appalling
>> +            ;; lack of forethought or testing, being easily misled if
>> +            ;; the user should have left point at eob in a buffer
>> +            ;; visiting the custom file.
>> +            (when (eq (point-min) (point-max))
>
> Is this test robust enough?  Why not use buffer-size instead?

buffer-size also ignores narrowing.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510  2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."

Re: master 6d4179957a8: Fix test of whether to insert lexical-binding cookies in custom files

[Andreas Schwab]

On Mai 11 2024, Andreas Schwab wrote:

> On Mai 11 2024, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
>>> +            ;; The previous test `eobp' was written with an appalling
>>> +            ;; lack of forethought or testing, being easily misled if
>>> +            ;; the user should have left point at eob in a buffer
>>> +            ;; visiting the custom file.
>>> +            (when (eq (point-min) (point-max))
>>
>> Is this test robust enough?  Why not use buffer-size instead?
>
> buffer-size also ignores narrowing.

I missed the preceding (widen), though.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510  2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."

Re: master 6d4179957a8: Fix test of whether to insert lexical-binding cookies in custom files

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
> Cc: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 18:58:22 +0200
> 
> On Mai 11 2024, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> 
> > On Mai 11 2024, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >
> >>> +            ;; The previous test `eobp' was written with an appalling
> >>> +            ;; lack of forethought or testing, being easily misled if
> >>> +            ;; the user should have left point at eob in a buffer
> >>> +            ;; visiting the custom file.
> >>> +            (when (eq (point-min) (point-max))
> >>
> >> Is this test robust enough?  Why not use buffer-size instead?
> >
> > buffer-size also ignores narrowing.
> 
> I missed the preceding (widen), though.

Right, but buffer-size is cheaper.