From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Noam Postavsky Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#13400: 23.4; overlapping process filter calls Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 23:37:29 -0400 Message-ID: <871rxws4xy.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87r4ltpctd.fsf@wallace.tews.net> <87o91guoxl.fsf@gmail.com> <835znnnavb.fsf@gnu.org> <87pnllsspr.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="179103"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2.90 (gnu/linux) Cc: 13400@debbugs.gnu.org, hendrik@askra.de To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 08 05:38:09 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hvZFh-000kTD-Ae for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 08 Aug 2019 05:38:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46746 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hvZFf-0004ms-PP for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 23:38:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41162) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hvZFa-0004mV-UX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 23:38:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hvZFZ-0005d5-Su for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 23:38:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:59162) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hvZFZ-0005cc-Ps for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 23:38:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hvZFZ-0006oR-Kz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 23:38:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Noam Postavsky Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 03:38:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 13400 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 13400-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B13400.156523545826158 (code B ref 13400); Thu, 08 Aug 2019 03:38:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 13400) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Aug 2019 03:37:38 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39750 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hvZFC-0006nq-6u for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 23:37:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ot1-f53.google.com ([209.85.210.53]:46233) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hvZFA-0006nd-0h for 13400@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 23:37:36 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ot1-f53.google.com with SMTP id z23so4804627ote.13 for <13400@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 20:37:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=WsCml53Ya1UBqpg3NUC6Jax25nujGsg71MZ+pQTnn08=; b=qHfha80+SbMlPNm0zI2j+fZUIbbxQJjYeDQi1SOuJ5SxS6jMyp8WasqJ/CzTDfze+6 V5wPeasJmJ2gutt4juXU1kiCIGHViiJuhzkAKz6A0Y3Fsgdk72Ke5BX4nf0i9WC+Nqbp 6XVYkFA7DGbVJpYsK9Mt/rQisSB2FNwAf314O5pL6lXD+wDeLMFr4L8+1AKh/K7c/J/C Yv39I7mzA6UaYaql/zD6+zj0XNDww3+6oBKBAaa96+gkUYOVWUHiXT0wNWAkFAw0h6rL UCzXuyfAx2w2WjUuLqc4Sr5mpRLA3GsTmjwvxjFffSB0Me7KgEEHzs94UVJaz/T48uO2 4lqg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=WsCml53Ya1UBqpg3NUC6Jax25nujGsg71MZ+pQTnn08=; b=k25fUHw6+z8Y3blhXXOss9gjn2mzXA+UB/TkC8DSQwOM1b1Ze8rkdwLotabxabBM11 Hen1GfA6DQdlJdWbzjs3V6rt+rk+gbSiHmTnud3do0v9ZNNAzxWluzo2/wKJqWgcdsB4 Por+RUhAu6JrpoGKIYsMHJTtQZwlfQQk2/8ORZm/sR0NVSBHxRycA3vI7k2G/2GqVqhE XsdwTvNkm82uwvx63FfjFR11uZ+uxfiqCD+TIvQB8Z+8XgDLEporpcvFTdqhdN4fddyb fF64JX2jgxDj3gHtNx4UXSNmAjIRxJyvBQMVsd4lp5+1w+ZPu2ympmA0OuD2N2zVxC6p F8kw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXtlrgzTZkLe+C0vsAN7p12YvNhY+inRxNFIuv2yA5Pok/eX7L/ xFK3tRgtc2D7PnQoS+NRN4U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqysEGiP1cRRn+eJKFE/kuIDqE1XW9yd+IgZZz7zzX2ozkXlImGz7TKrDo6KNKtMi6FLxSNp9w== X-Received: by 2002:a6b:6516:: with SMTP id z22mr12615792iob.7.1565235450350; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 20:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from minid (cbl-45-2-119-34.yyz.frontiernetworks.ca. [45.2.119.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c81sm144776419iof.28.2019.08.07.20.37.29 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 07 Aug 2019 20:37:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Mon, 05 Aug 2019 14:31:39 -0400") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:164744 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: > I'm pretty sure that while there might be use-cases for recursive > invocation of filters, this is a very exceptional situation and the > average programmer will not expect it and would be stumped if/when > it happens. > > So the default should be to prevent it, with maybe some way to override > it to cater to the exceptional case where recursive invocation > is to be allowed. > > I think we could do that by setting a property on process object during > filter invocation to postpone further filter invocations, and then the > process filter could locally unset this property if it wants to allow > recursive invocations. Yeah, I suppose that would probably be better. Although then we have some potential weird edge cases like what happens when when changing the property during a recursive invocation.