From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#66912: With `require', the byte compiler reports the wrong file for errors. Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:48:19 +0000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="26463"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: acm@muc.de, Eli Zaretskii , 66912@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 10 18:49:34 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 1tAC46-0006jW-LW for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 18:49:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tAC3c-00055q-Bu; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 12:49:04 -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 1tAC3b-00055W-14 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 12:49:03 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tAC3a-0001kT-PK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 12:49:02 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debbugs.gnu.org; s=debbugs-gnu-org; h=From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Date:To:Subject; bh=U6azanH7MMv9yDt43XQkPbRv8Y8HK617XsHDo4dKrXk=; b=ONGVly4pfFQhteEyMHZRpcLJskzrlo8l1SXld9v/MooYzOf14Xjhj05JalJq3vypHxEDcsmtamZKRK8tSDf5QIB7CjwgBDex1bJCpw2s6FRGevzPf66gM3QUIf5gTVBCgHyHBwTplgOlAL2qFu1mted/1L2nt9jGlvD/aqKWaWynMTkRfTrI8dD16UyMDW1yUH7/jqCChh2V7TfpLTbDFPDD175xmRsFR0dxYg3rz5zbfzV56Iz422FSDWeB8JqdcKvPqhVLfJIA/hWjHEi7cym0kILUtXdGXMlU6fNFaNmsP4matx784OGUIqualyH5h9HBjWXax1o/fgxBjJLrQQ==; Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tAC3a-0005AN-Jw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 12:49:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Alan Mackenzie Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:49:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 66912 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 66912-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B66912.173126090919782 (code B ref 66912); Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:49:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 66912) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Nov 2024 17:48:29 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56509 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tAC33-000590-HW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 12:48:29 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.muc.de ([193.149.48.3]:25824) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tAC30-00058l-Q5 for 66912@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 12:48:27 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 56623 invoked by uid 3782); 10 Nov 2024 18:48:20 +0100 Original-Received: from muc.de (pd953a71d.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.83.167.29]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 18:48:20 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 21498 invoked by uid 1000); 10 Nov 2024 17:48:19 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:295196 Archived-At: Hello, Stefan. On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 11:45:38 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> Then I don't know what "the message" you're referring to. > >> (or are you referring to some other point you made elsewhere?) > > I simply meant what the user sees on the screen. If the user sees > > "While loading foo.el... \nWrong type argument: listp, baz" whilst doing > > something, then enables the debugger and repeats the action, she should > > see the same message at the top of the backtrace. Surely? Truncating > > that message can only lead to confusion. > I still don't understand: currently, if you see a message "Wrong > type argument: listp, baz", then enable the debugger and reproduce the > error, you won't see "Wrong type argument: listp, baz" but > Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument listp baz) > instead. IOW, instead of the error message, you see the error object. I've never noticed these to be different. I suspect most users wouldn't either. I wasn't talking about the boilerplate and formatting being different, I was talking about the essence of the message, the substance. It is the same in the two examples you have given. Part of that essence is to be the "While loading foo.el... " bit. I think the user should see that, both when the error first occurs, and when it occurs again after enabling debug-on-error and repeating the action that caused it. > > Again, why do you think this is what we should aim for, rather than > > having the same message in the error handler and at the top of a > > backtrace? > Because of my "A => B => compile => C => D" example: the message I want > to have depends on the chain from the point where I catch the error > (i.e. the `condition-case`) to the point where the error is signaled. > And I don't really care about the debugger case. That is no explanation as to WHY you think it's the right thing. The point in that chain where we catch the error is an internal implementation detail, of no interest to the user. WHY are you so unconcerned about the debugger case? I think it would be consistent to display "While loading..." the same in both cases. > Stefan -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).