From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Heerdegen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Certain numbers of special forms cause changing behaviour on function calls in --batch Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 23:12:26 +0200 Message-ID: <8760stvwzp.fsf@web.de> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467148401 2038 80.91.229.3 (28 Jun 2016 21:13:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:13:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel To: Wilfred Hughes Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 28 23:13:12 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 1bI0Ji-0008HS-Jy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 23:13:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39970 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bI0Jh-0006V0-QE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:13:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47104) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bI0JB-0006Um-4A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:12:37 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bI0J8-0001zm-0T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:12:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.3]:56458) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bI0J7-0001zh-Mo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:12:33 -0400 Original-Received: from drachen.dragon ([79.216.83.88]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MTPvz-1asKq248QR-00SPa5; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 23:12:30 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Wilfred Hughes's message of "Sun, 26 Jun 2016 17:39:39 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.95 (gnu/linux) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:f5vhexmUw6EK7kQPT8LOUVrHOeDraOkaUrhhr9qbqr4ybALwxVR 0IDWmegCvDvjYibty6pprq0LmFA489vB2378v0a6NVZ6ACUwjAJ5v2KsZH14ola+h71jVkD 4FnUSH5/HTvEMnhMhhmkPBwsiPz7fyZLYSNkwUr0OmYVVH1JkcJ7ETh8GDO7V8lLTjI/FDn 1NruNkr4lkZ7snjWbKUXw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:pviRtPq7WVI=:P5yg6J8YpZILkTRsmgDPRY Ygm/SeEh9ZYphoyWQjYXf5+4C96NVDJ5UizCGvUJ7HuJ+CBvxcPqZS1X8iE/rcI9mkHqfbFnO KB4juuc94MOahmfuYDgceLQxWP9F1oO7PiKE9bu2aCz1WgzCNK9Y28Qpsv61pnTgGLyRyP8un 08N6P10AMBxdyT/dkrhCJwazM9qurG5808YrcWaKhbSDzY5CJtt9zlPyIk15bjPObWEm124tj jTntnxvGZgqn8MwoWycojSZmJ7SNV9Yh8lCOnWdm3eCbK+o6AOzHeblm7y3RXpFfcqwSwvQag Y6wFVxrIJmUrkjO+tPm2Vg4yemr4cJZuIUl3lalJdlqmvCIHjvORobVZz4nq98IYuIkg0FTkB HVzAae7WGwmrRuC0xAkRSqF1/olxiJH8H/3BdQT0o9W1ml4QnDpNqDexMaNfWxFhUhldtz2Hs ckVrGva0acwY8sgsPh7scZEYvlCi3ig5oI/Np6kll0zh3WU+Ia6x9rBoL+cPFt2Mz3UfLdRty sEozFOmLcwj110aWpMHdsE8azMz8ytvVx93i18bwBi8MuZ0zhmliKDP/gjjKaZSXgCFjyAatT Jcn6zksyMeyeNugv+ng9VqJNr8lZOSmqIK/ubuPT0RHfuWh0P8o3mHnoopB+D8XOFChXjKufa Svd6kYjOIDptn1ypb7epYWJ4K2a85OyzBZu7aA8C1CUFDY4cjpX9bi2+rLBDbhgMan4GJWFah Z4NaVhdmBmbisgDuGXI2JaGspRPqazFM6sOtfqGfAJbEor6Gc3Pm0Xzxf2CbyST/nSBKrq5o X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 212.227.15.3 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:204902 Archived-At: Wilfred Hughes writes: > However, running it in --batch gives: > > $ emacs -batch -l ~/projects/pyimport/nasty.el > point is: 20 > > This is incorrect: for some reason move-end-of-line is behaving > differently here. Removing any of the extra special forms (e.g. the > redundant lets) fixes it. Strange indeed. OTOH, looking at the doc of `move-end-of-line' ("Move point to end of current line as displayed.") I wouldn't rely on the result in batch mode at all, since there is no display. `end-of-line' yields the same result in both situations here. Michael.