From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Emanuel Berg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.erc.general,gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: Re: bug#68401: 30.0.50; ERC 5.6-git: `erc-cmd-GMSG', `erc-cmd-AMSG', `erc-cmd-GME', `erc-cmd-AME'. 2nd attempt Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:00:26 +0100 Message-ID: <87ttn5job9.fsf@dataswamp.org> References: <87v87yvnly.fsf@dataswamp.org> <834jfikb4d.fsf@gnu.org> <87mstavias.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87wmseoskl.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87plxyowpg.fsf__13716.8874776521$1705633220$gmane$org@neverwas.me> <87wms1k6xg.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87plxt2yjx.fsf@neverwas.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="25570"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: emacs-erc@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:mfs0UqvOuYL4A/PFLZyl/IQA9fI= Original-X-From: emacs-erc-bounces+sf-erc-help=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 22 18:02:07 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: sf-erc-help@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rRxgV-0006Qq-7c for sf-erc-help@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:02:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rRxf9-0008Nh-Tl; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 12:00:44 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rRxf5-0008Jw-Sn for emacs-erc@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 12:00:42 -0500 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rRxf3-000616-Jh for emacs-erc@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 12:00:39 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rRxf0-0004Sc-4G for emacs-erc@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:00:34 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-erc@gnu.org Original-Followup-To: gmane.emacs.erc.general,gmane.emacs.bugs Mail-Copies-To: never Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=sf-erc-help@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-erc@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion about ERC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-erc-bounces+sf-erc-help=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-erc-bounces+sf-erc-help=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.erc.general:2387 gmane.emacs.bugs:278709 Archived-At: J.P. wrote: >>> It might be nice to remove at most one space, for cases >>> where a user wants to send preformatted text. OTOH, normal >>> /MSG doesn't do this, so perhaps we shouldn't here either. >> >> Again, this is in the original `erc-cmd-AMSG'. I have no >> opinion, so you can decide it. >> >> "At most one space", what space should that be? >> Leading or trailing? > > Leading. See the test for `erc-extract-command-from-line' to > understand the behavior of `do-not-parse-args', which > determines LINE. Actually, if we're doing away with > `commandp', there should be no reason for "at most one," > only "exactly one" (IIRC). So if and only if the initial char is a whitespace, it, and only it, should be dropped. E.g. " line string " should be transformed into " line string ". Also, at this point, only "erc-cmd-AMSG" and "erc-cmd-GMSG" has the trim line, and the reason is it is present in the original `erc-cmd-AMSG'. Should we also have the new one in `erc-cmd-AME' and `erc-cmd-GME'? >>>> (erc-with-all-buffers-of-server nil >>>> - (lambda () >>>> - (erc-channel-p (erc-default-target))) >>>> + (lambda () (erc-channel-p (erc-default-target))) >>>> + (erc-send-message line))) >>> >>> Without first checking for connectivity, we run into >>> another situation in which messages may be inserted but >>> not sent, similar to the bit about commands being >>> potentially "misleading," above. The most obvious way to >>> solve this is to check for "physical" connectivity with >>> something like: >>> >>> (erc-with-all-buffers-of-server nil #'erc-server-process-alive >>> (when (and erc--target (erc--current-buffer-joined-p)) >>> (erc-send-message line)))) >>> >>> Alternatively, you can check for "logical" connectivity, >>> which is probably more in keeping with traditional design >>> principles: >>> >>> (erc-with-all-buffers-of-server nil nil >>> (when (and erc-server-connected erc--target (erc--current-buffer-joined-p)) >>> (erc-send-message line)))) >>> >>> One minor downside of this second method is that IRC >>> adjacent protocols and aberrant proxy servers that happen >>> to skip 376/422 and also provide some (possibly &local) >>> "control channel" won't be detected. (BTW, you won't be >>> needing the `erc--target' in either example if you rebase >>> atop the latest master.) >> >> Okay, but instead of having these checks embedded and >> hopefully correctly repeated four times, shouldn't we have >> two functions, say "erc-connected-physical-p" and >> "erc-connected-logical-p" and call either of those (or >> both) from the functions? > > If you want to factor out a common helper function, fine by > me. AFAICT such a thing would need to include > `erc-with-all-buffers-of-server' to be effective unless the > predicates you've named alone result in meaningful code > reuse. (Not sure how an `erc-connected-physical-p' would be > any different than the existing 'erc-server-process-alive', > though I suppose an `erc-connected-logical-p' could be > useful if it just returns `erc-server-connected'.) Okay, I'm on it, stay tuned. > If you applied the unit-test patch atop your commit, you > won't be able to "git commit --amend" your previous changes. > See the "-i, --interactive" option for git-rebase(1), then > maybe rearrange things so your patch comes *after* the test. > You can always "git rebase --abort" if you mess up. > And there's always #git on Libera. No, I didn't do the unit test, let's agree on the source first, after that it will be interesting to try it. -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal