From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#66912: With `require', the byte compiler reports the wrong file for errors. Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:37:26 -0500 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Stefan Monnier Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="27349"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 66912@debbugs.gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 10 22:38:28 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 1tAFda-0006zQ-TR for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 22:38:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tAFdF-0001jq-P6; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:38:05 -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 1tAFdD-0001jR-7M for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:38:03 -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 1tAFdC-0000ci-V4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:38:02 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debbugs.gnu.org; s=debbugs-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From:To:Subject; bh=eufiEqoQXVjea3fyRbjJPssmUQyatd/PAEACGOLH/Ks=; b=XiSBM+v2/j7co/TjErbZPxxI6+hOWRr3X6lYeGavkjMFkwYSLo/JGLe3Eho9YrfzrQFdtC8FsgtW8lNu5BOnDEz4OaWYQTvnf71BpqMx0amYzsa62UY2dTy06x1xeHbMt3AjcM8sFAPIW88DEZLox3KzmnYh+ZqYbPMHVJW81HEFsnGG3YAZaQMwDqgfq2WRqxdlfR6MdCYLW+zJ2wfcsCiAVItlB1XK5550Gy6MxygZJIqUCe3C0jCk9rjONoSKUwCw6rlguIxhBFkCn+P/2QbWpkviS5Ub157STDKqOm2hX3NuIX8efjTTp1SXtyy0rbESRULt9V9R2HR5U26Crg==; Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tAFdC-0007DQ-II for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:38:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 21:38:02 +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=B66912.173127465927696 (code B ref 66912); Sun, 10 Nov 2024 21:38:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 66912) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Nov 2024 21:37:39 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56892 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tAFco-0007Cd-O7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:37:39 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:9474) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tAFcl-0007CL-VI for 66912@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:37:37 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D41E4442AEE; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:37:29 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1731274648; bh=4WHnRTiETC8DifNvtev8eScoY+k8ZIICKzo2gP+g1yE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=b5Mlt7+5WxHypk7tMuyrDgprhath2cfRNfU06Az9IJyrCfh9K5Q130DPjIsquWm7L ELi0yUu9TVBOxYlI29C4pDuteJugqqGXWPomGIbe49QO8GNsMVQ+W0IUaPSyxIKq4+ FYjcjgdmVdDknlGVtzsWE2ZeWv+uqcxEBjSUpPurqudxhrwpz0vxPI2/bDVGvyf4Mr b40d1lvATyuJtlbJ23JVl3vJSduUuvPLLhSWeczWI38znZmQVdmjmyQ7eqWdjW3NDE IXvjrCRT1kzxrIpKZSKzciRpQ40buyxU5zw0SG0OYy4JBoKKYJ65kqhKd0eTHFBYu/ 9RlQslrWpsXdw== Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C00DF442AE3; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:37:28 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from pastel (104-195-225-43.cpe.teksavvy.com [104.195.225.43]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94DB8120426; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:37:28 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:48:19 +0000") 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:295206 Archived-At: >> 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. Not at all. In the above example, the error message goes to the compilation buffer, and it would be weird for that buffer to say "while loading A while loading B" whereas the compiled code loads neither. > WHY are you so unconcerned about the debugger case? In the debugger case, I usually have direct access to the problematic code and usually don't care that much about the further parts of the context explaining why that code is executed. Occasionally I do, but "loading" is not special in this respect: I will just as often be interested to know which command was used, in which buffer, or which hook caused that code to be run. > I think it would be consistent to display "While loading..." the same > in both cases. To be honest, I don't see much value in displaying "while loading" in the echo area in general. I'm not opposed to it, but the only case where I know it could be helpful is during compilation (which I'm mostly interested to see it in the compilation buffer). Stefan