() Tassilo Horn <tsdh@gnu.org>
() Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:23:05 +0200

   > Does ‘nrepl-send-string’ change the current buffer?

   No.

   > The same questions could apply to any of the functions involved.

Did you check the other functions?  (If not, before you do, see below.)

   > [use ‘message’]

Sorry, i was not clear.  I would use ‘message’ in several places, each
w/ a unique format string (to avoid Emacs combining them in *Messages*),
to trace the execution path.  That would help answer some aux questions:
Did the function finish?  Did it return the form as expected?

   I tried that, and message always said I'm in the buffer I was
   supposed to be in, even though the next message was the error.

   To be super-safe I added

       (assert (eq major-mode 'clojure-mode))

   before every single form of my function!  Right now, I only have one
   clojure-mode buffer open.  The original post-command-hook error still
   occurs, but the assertions are always true anyhow.  So it doesn't
   seem to be caused by being in the wrong buffer...

With the series-of-‘message’ calls "instrumentation", i would expand the
set of interesting state to check other assumptions.  I see several vars
that are ‘let’-bound in minibuffer.el that are good candidates.

Sort of in parallel (maybe you found a bug in Emacs!), i would also try
a trivial func that does no computation and returns constant, known
data, likewise "instrumented", to validate the completion machinery.
Did you already do that?
-- 
Thien-Thi Nguyen ..................................... GPG key: 4C807502
.                  NB: ttn at glug dot org is not me                   .
.                 (and has not been since 2007 or so)                  .
.                        ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES                         .
........... please send technical questions to mailing lists ...........