From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: (declare (debug 0)) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:29:25 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1948175.1634607620@pental> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="29028"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stephen Gildea Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 19 14:34:43 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1mcoKI-0007Kr-SO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 14:34:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45140 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mcoKG-0007vX-RE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:34:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38660) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mcoFN-00040j-21 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:29:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:50473) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mcoFJ-0008C8-SI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:29:35 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DA78C440BF2; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:29:31 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 52EF54400FD; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:29:26 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1634646566; bh=Oj4Pr0v9NShJM9uqEFmNZR+4FeViapfiPE6Fs6WABtU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=AsimwH3j4cX50iEjZBqORxOgThaMiCl8u5xQCB7DPAi9IwtEHIc9/cVFR9Yc7FvQi 1PUdfs7WhWEOOlglxcjDVlwX0werO/nErvetGsO8KQUrqMVa1IJmNLY/Haa+GVaop7 W+ZAPqmNsGIC82MVuiPVaQneXHpipnva23TGBFXvCDgRQ5NQiFM5l26E6pjN7UXrkH t1rEjFeKm1iX3mzhAfGXvZ5dj1hqmOL3dZgBcJ27v85n1aEpq8BIef4RiMRoV/hPUV zmbzuKyalZnQGB9A7NPC/hxevloJq6QV40PeztKa9QQHR3OCVZ3cNJkX2wyFTimvu0 JDJ+NK2itDiGA== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.241.23]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2602E12046B; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:29:26 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <1948175.1634607620@pental> (Stephen Gildea's message of "Mon, 18 Oct 2021 18:40:20 -0700") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:277352 Archived-At: Stephen Gildea [2021-10-18 18:40:20] wrote: > The node Instrumenting Macro Calls in edebug.texi recommends declaring > (debug 0) > to specify that none of the macro's arguments should be instrumented. > But all examples I could find in Emacs code use (debug nil) for this. > > Which is it, 0 or nil? > > If 0 is the preferred specification, should the documentation say what > other integers mean? As one of those rare souls who've been working on edebug.el recentishly, I must say I hadn't noticed this and has no idea that 0 was supposed to be treated specially. I would have written (&rest sexp) instead, tho more likely I would have written nothing at all and relies on the default behavior of Edebug to not instrument args of macro calls. This depends on `edebug-eval-macro-args` being nil, but IMO this var should be removed because setting it to non-nil will result in broken behavior in too many situations. Stefan