Re: master 8ef8463: Accept lexical lambda in auto-insert-alist

Re: master 8ef8463: Accept lexical lambda in auto-insert-alist

[Basil L. Contovounesios]

> branch: master
> commit 8ef84632c24192a71cec89a859b064925ed5aca2
> Author: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase@acm.org>
> Commit: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase@acm.org>
>
>     Accept lexical lambda in auto-insert-alist
>     
>     This bug was exposed by a previous removal of quoting around lambda
>     expressions in autoinsert-tests.el (1ecd350f38ee), which caused some
>     of those tests to fail.

Thanks for fixing this.  I wonder why I didn't get any test failures
with 'make bootstrap && make check', though?  Did you run the tests as
'cd test; make autoinsert-tests' instead?  Would that make a difference?

-- 
Basil

Re: master 8ef8463: Accept lexical lambda in auto-insert-alist

[Mattias Engdegård]

22 juni 2020 kl. 16.10 skrev Basil L. Contovounesios <contovob@tcd.ie>:

> I wonder why I didn't get any test failures
> with 'make bootstrap && make check', though?  Did you run the tests as
> 'cd test; make autoinsert-tests' instead?  Would that make a difference?

I don't remember, but maybe you ran the tests byte-compiled? A compiled closure won't look like a list, and wouldn't trigger the bug.

There may be more instances of the same bug (ie, not recognising lexical closures correctly). I only had a quick look and didn't find anything outright wrong, but could very well have missed something.

Re: master 8ef8463: Accept lexical lambda in auto-insert-alist

[Basil L. Contovounesios]

Mattias Engdegård <mattiase@acm.org> writes:

> 22 juni 2020 kl. 16.10 skrev Basil L. Contovounesios <contovob@tcd.ie>:
>
>> I wonder why I didn't get any test failures
>> with 'make bootstrap && make check', though?  Did you run the tests as
>> 'cd test; make autoinsert-tests' instead?  Would that make a difference?
>
> I don't remember, but maybe you ran the tests byte-compiled? A compiled closure
> won't look like a list, and wouldn't trigger the bug.

Makes sense.

> There may be more instances of the same bug (ie, not recognising lexical
> closures correctly). I only had a quick look and didn't find anything outright
> wrong, but could very well have missed something.

Thanks.  I'm sure we'll find out eventually.  ;)

-- 
Basil