Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> +                  (let ((inhibit-message t)     ;[1]
>> +                        (warning-minimum-log-level :emergency))
>>                      (advice-add 'macroexpand :around macroexpand-advice)
>> -                    (macroexpand-all sexp))
>> +                    (condition-case nil         ;[3]
>> +                        (macroexpand-all sexp)
>> +                      (t sexp)))
>
> This `t` catches more than errors.  Better replace it with `error`.

Done plus Eli's comments from that other branch.

>> -                  (let ((warning-minimum-log-level :emergency))
>> +                  (let ((inhibit-message t)                  ;[1]
>> +                        (macroexp-inhibit-compiler-macros t) ;[2]
>> +                        (warning-minimum-log-level :emergency))
>>                      (advice-add 'macroexpand-1 :around macroexpand-advice)
>> -                    (macroexpand-all sexp elisp--local-macroenv))
>> +                    (condition-case nil         ;[3]
>> +                        (macroexpand-all sexp elisp--local-macroenv)
>> +                      (t sexp)))
>
> What kind of errors are we expecting to catch with this
> `condition-case`?  The pre-existing advice is supposed to catch macro
> expansion errors, and the new let-binding is supposed to catch
> compiler-macro errors, so it seems to me there aren't any *expected*
> errors left.  If so, better remove this `condition-case` (or replace it
> with `with-demoted-errors`) since all it has left to do is to hide any
> real coding error that may come up and that we'd like to be told about.

Done.

FWIW, bug#60081 can also be merged into this one.  (The other bugs that
Zehao mentions in her/his last post are either merged already or
typos/not related to this bug.)  Technically, I should be able to merge
that bug (after having been pointed to admin/notes/bugtracker), but is
it OK for me (as a "plain user") to do so?  Or should someone with more
authority do that?

Thanks.