From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_R=c3=b6hler?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Certain numbers of special forms cause changing behaviour on function calls in --batch Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 07:58:57 +0200 Message-ID: References: <8760stvwzp.fsf@web.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467266089 30374 80.91.229.3 (30 Jun 2016 05:54:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 05:54:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Wilfred Hughes To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 30 07:54:37 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1bIUvr-0004IY-9M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 07:54:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47049 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIUvq-00027L-Er for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 01:54:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37005) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIUvk-00027B-MY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 01:54:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIUvf-0001zn-KJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 01:54:27 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.131]:58866) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIUvf-0001za-AC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 01:54:23 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.178.35] ([95.119.231.19]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue005) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MYJFd-1anzf31sRN-00V5se; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 07:54:20 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.1.0 In-Reply-To: <8760stvwzp.fsf@web.de> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:Ax+3efdyK8OX0B+oDT577HwdNVzx5MzZBNkOxavTE8tUdOwmpPW uC1SakjKIvMdBO7JkBfHEMLT2AdxuvVtR1MKQKfjpinDo7mTqNpQQ0dUyTIdNWunoAmRJGO BPspAFFLHku6PE7KwzdjBGXqey8hER3r6vD7hCXKAANNf0zKPcWyfifpryjOL90RqjVTruK 7x0T0rQlo3gQJKyUys9bw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:ZZxbFNvMljo=:lJIppjNalDeFSKMUmrjf1N b4pHEmuTELJfpxHijwAembGv4HWe4sjvOkvBweyL6/rDAcvy6BMdsr5SrIeSJ6RTczimFZR9v BcfamD6pUkG2aNT7jva0GTvIorf0amPdTFKsse+rpkjAtF3YoivEYRsxsVm6uKXQ4PjMUuw9Q ZM/p0QAnpk5FHbZLy6lrsrg/FTcL5ldZzAzyZI1HdbYOYkh5zDY5W8FThAmWBgDOgVxlIIpCJ oMz3QzGoxAqwNUa5eNAZuGS0wGptdpW/okWKnkG6kai5q5TC1Tr1SVXarx3Jt3+l0Cx/rYJgJ bZAFlulOY7X9qEaBN/P9W3hFfRVl9lN4oG0fkfu38dHa5o+hnJqIvUfN+z4p6priQuUyd79Ji VPP1Ci/1n9BF60ImAuZLomD/s+ibWG6hENfx3Au8yET0PWwR6PTMG0P+IF4KAtgi9AX//gy+l DCjpFVqYa1y1SsALyZEH1b9hGP2hpgAgolwxepnN/sQ1lOstaLrmd2hmrBnXKSYZ+cQyr1ca6 20f3RVltDwI+6nEQaXBqY9jxWuLUL4Di7d/ABdADCOCRPCL9t/2kysiSHF63H5+wMf2HITlcd kwQKkKcyNVfVhEijowhU3HyQ3q+jPbQdWIBRdlA1iwa1nIHbdnk7jVrZP4GwKyorCdR5X0osj IEzSsEyniuNPq/9oVzLtBHsxjYv4jd0OQ79N4ULkaBF5gwq0brNO0XVVeeyP2MQg2BVM/1q4c MLuiMGA39HDtOijl X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 212.227.126.131 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:204974 Archived-At: On 28.06.2016 23:12, Michael Heerdegen wrote: > Wilfred Hughes writes: > >> However, running it in --batch gives: >> >> $ emacs -batch -l ~/projects/pyimport/nasty.el >> point is: 20 >> >> This is incorrect: for some reason move-end-of-line is behaving >> differently here. Removing any of the extra special forms (e.g. the >> redundant lets) fixes it. > Strange indeed. > > OTOH, looking at the doc of `move-end-of-line' ("Move point to end of > current line as displayed.") I wouldn't rely on the result in batch mode > at all, since there is no display. > > `end-of-line' yields the same result in both situations here. > > > Michael. > A plausible guess. `move-end-of-line' is obviously designed for interactive use. It deals with var `line-move-visual' for example. Are there reasons not to employ `end-of-line'?