From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17146: 24.4.50; File save with incapable coding system precluded by strange error message Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 19:01:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <<87ha6fyw1e.fsf@nbtrap.com>> <<83lhvqcsb3.fsf@gnu.org>> <> <<83ha6ecqj3.fsf@gnu.org>> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1399413903 27979 80.91.229.3 (6 May 2014 22:05:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 22:05:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 17146@debbugs.gnu.org, nbtrap@nbtrap.com To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 07 00:04:56 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WhnSx-0004TT-9U for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 May 2014 00:03:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55159 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wh8Ec-00055o-QQ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 22:02:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54589) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wh8ER-00055i-RG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 22:02:24 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wh8EE-0006aF-SF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 22:02:15 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:33772) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wh8EE-0006aB-PL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 22:02:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wh8EE-0007tN-72 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 22:02:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 02:02:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17146 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 17146-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17146.139925530630302 (code B ref 17146); Mon, 05 May 2014 02:02:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17146) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 May 2014 02:01:46 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51123 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wh8Dx-0007sg-L8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 22:01:46 -0400 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:17287) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wh8Du-0007sO-4Z for 17146@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 22:01:43 -0400 Original-Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id s4521YdJ031538 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 5 May 2014 02:01:35 GMT Original-Received: from aserz7022.oracle.com (aserz7022.oracle.com [141.146.126.231]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4521Wdo002519 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 5 May 2014 02:01:33 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0006.oracle.com (abhmp0006.oracle.com [141.146.116.12]) by aserz7022.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4521WtC018723; Mon, 5 May 2014 02:01:32 GMT In-Reply-To: <<83ha6ecqj3.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:88673 Archived-At: > > > This change is backward-incompatible, but is not in NEWS for some > > > reason. Needless to say, the canonical way of fixing the fallout is > > > not described in NEWS. Are functions that need Help mode supposed to > > > let-bind these hooks? If so, the patch below should fix the problem. > > > In any case, please document the change and the way to adapt to it in > > > NEWS. > > > > Please see bug #17109. FWIW, this regression really bothers me. >=20 > I read the mailing list, so I'm perfectly aware of that bug and the > related discussions. Please don't hijack this bug to hold it hostage > to that one. This bug is about a related issue, but one thing it is > _not_ about is reverting the change in question. So talking here > instead of on #17109 is not useful. It is now two months later, the 24.4 pretest is out, and there still has been no follow-up for this "related-issue" bug - or for #17109, for that matter. I was hoping to get some guidance from the fix for #17146, at least. I am still left wondering (a) whether there is an intention to fix what has been broken for Emacs 24.4, and (b) if not, how I will need to go about fixing the damage myself locally. See also bug #17397, which I filed recently. Help commands (seemingly because they now use only `with-help-window') no longer invoke `temp-buffer-show-hook', and this breaks quite a bit for me (whether I use one of my own help commands or a vanilla one). The Lisp manual has still not been updated to reflect all of the changes, AFAICT. It still says clearly, for instance, that `with-output-to-temp-buffer' switches to Help mode, which it does *not* (bug #17109): "Unlike `with-output-to-temp-buffer', however, it [`with-temp-buffer-window'] does not automatically switch that buffer to Help mode." And this text was updated for release 24.4 to add the word "automatically", so presumably someone also paid some attention to its continued claim regarding `with-output-to-temp-buffer'. So ... product bug or doc bug? How to know? AFAIK, there was never any emacs-devel proposal discussed about changing the behavior in this regard - so maybe a product bug. But then again, AFAIK none of the changed "related-issue" behaviors were proposed and discussed either, and at least some of those changes have since been defended as not-gonna-revert - so maybe a doc bug. Although I still hope for a fix to bug #17109 that reverts the changes to `with-output-to-temp-buffer' which effectively neuter it, I have nevertheless changed my code (and it is quite a lot) to use `with-help-window' instead of `with-output-to-temp-buffer' - to try to adapt to the incompatible changes introduced. (This is actually a bit of a mess because the code in question needs to use one or the other of these macros, depending on the Emacs version. Both macros exist also for previous versions, but with different behaviors, etc. Pretty ugly.) Should I also be adding explicit calls to run `temp-buffer-show-hook' here and there, in help commands? If so, what about the vanilla Emacs help commands? Can't a user expect her `temp-buffer-show-hook' functions to continue to be invoked by help commands? The doc string for `with-help-window' sends you off to the one for `with-temp-buffer-window', and that doc says that it runs `temp-buffer-window-show-hook' (not `temp-buffer-show-hook'). Should I be adding my function(s) to that `window' hook also? (But only for the latest release and future, presumably.) The Elisp manual for `with-help-window' says that it "evaluates BODY like `with-output-to-temp-buffer'." Does that imply that it runs `temp-buffer-show-hook'? Not clear - "evaluates like" is pretty vague. Vague is probably OK if the behavior is really the same, but if there are differences then it is not sufficient. Not running the hook would be a difference worth mentioning, IMO. (The changing and growing plethora of similar-sounding macros and hooks is all a bit mind-boggling...) What is the suggested way, or a suggested way, to deal with this incompatible change (or these incompatible changes, depending on how you want to look at it)? I really would like to know. It is not clear to me what the policy is now, or even whether Nathan's bug #17146 and related bugs will be closed as "notabug" or will eventually be fixed. So far, they are still open, but there are plenty of bugs that have languished for years, so that alone doesn't inspire much hope. Hoping for some guidance, information.