Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Akib Azmain Turja >> Cc: Feng Shu , 59793@debbugs.gnu.org >> Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2022 23:16:47 +0600 >> >> > Am I missing something, or do you redefine a function and then expect it to work like you never redefined it? >> >> Unexpected: bug59593-yank just inserts the killed text. >> Expected: bug59593-yank intercepts and shows the killed text in echo >> area. > > You have redefined a subr.el function with cl-letf*, so how is what happens > as result a bug in Emacs? Does the original subr.el function not do what > it's supposed to do, before you replace it? > > I understand you didn't expect the result of cl-letf*, and were surprised by > what you saw, but I don't understand why you expect the Emacs development to > do something about your surprise. > With subr.el (source), the bug59793-yank function overrides 'insert-for-yank' successfully. With subr.elc (compiled byte-code), the function can't override 'insert-for-yank'. Just try to replace the 'cl-letf' (not 'cl-letf*') form with an 'error' call, bug59793-yank still just inserts text, which is, obviously, unexpected. >> > So I'm still confused... >> >> Is it clear now? (Somehow, I think, no.) > > See above: I understand what you are saying, but not why this is submitted > as a bug to the Emacs development team. Both source and compiled Emacs Lisp code should show the same behavior, except performance. But 'subr.el' and 'subr.elc' show different behaviors. Isn't this a byte-compiler bug? -- Akib Azmain Turja, GPG key: 70018CE5819F17A3BBA666AFE74F0EFA922AE7F5 Fediverse: akib@hostux.social Codeberg: akib emailselfdefense.fsf.org | "Nothing can be secure without encryption."