bug#6991: Please keep bytecode out of *Backtrace* buffers

[Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>]

John Wiegley <jwiegley@gmail.com> writes:

>>>>>> Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
>
>> What's more, _users_ currently do the work by hand, so it must be possible
>> to at least partly (probably fully) get it done by program. If users can
>> manually (time-consuming and error-prone) redact the byte-code when pasting
>> a backtrace into a mail etc. then that can be done by program.
>
> Drew, can you show me what it will look like to have the elision performed?
> Sometimes the byte-code contains strings that give me a clue as to the
> problem, so I'm wondering what will disappear if this is fixed.

I thought the post I made yesterday showed the difference?  And it's
that the byte codes themselves get replaced by "..<bytecode>..", and not
the symbols (etc.) that are useful for figuring out backtraces.

But the patch was backwards -- it inhibited it outside of backtraces
instead of in backtraces.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no