From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6388: Should not match data be set on misses? Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:57:01 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1276196312 4290 80.91.229.12 (10 Jun 2010 18:58:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:58:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 6388@debbugs.gnu.org To: Lennart Borgman Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 10 20:58:31 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OMmxR-0004jG-0i for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:58:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59856 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OMmxQ-0005I2-GB for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:58:28 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54259 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OMmxI-0005GM-Rx for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:58:21 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OMmxH-0006qQ-Dd for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:58:20 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:56347) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OMmxH-0006qK-Bo for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:58:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OMmx0-0005od-5e; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:58:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:58:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6388 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 6388-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6388.127619622922346 (code B ref 6388); Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:58:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6388) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jun 2010 18:57:09 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OMmw9-0005oN-HR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:57:09 -0400 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OMmw7-0005o3-Bw for 6388@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:57:08 -0400 Original-Received: from faina.iro.umontreal.ca (faina.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.26.177]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o5AIv1wf016528; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:57:01 -0400 Original-Received: by faina.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 44066B4080; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:57:01 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Lennart Borgman's message of "Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:35:17 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV3554=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:58:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:37677 Archived-At: >> The main obstacle to such a change are: >> - it breaks some code. > Aka it makes some bugs (bad assumptions) surface. That is not always bad. I really meant bugs, as in: the code consciously takes advantage of current behavior. Those assumptions are only bad if we define them that way. > Yes, that is true. However the current behavior probably wastes a lot > of time for those unaware of it. Just like with programming with monitors where you're taught "always do the wait within a `while' loop", regexp-patching should always take place within a `if' or equivalent, Stefan