From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gerd =?UTF-8?Q?M=C3=B6llmann?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#65620: void function edebug-after Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2023 15:15:55 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87ledsku08.fsf@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2763"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: Michael Heerdegen , 65620@debbugs.gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 02 15:17:18 2023 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 1qcQV4-0000Tw-2l for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 02 Sep 2023 15:17:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qcQUg-0001gP-F9; Sat, 02 Sep 2023 09:16:54 -0400 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 1qcQUe-0001gB-Vq for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Sep 2023 09:16:52 -0400 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 1qcQUe-00081M-Mk for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Sep 2023 09:16:52 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1qcQUo-00078F-DP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Sep 2023 09:17:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Gerd =?UTF-8?Q?M=C3=B6llmann?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2023 13:17:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 65620 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 65620-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B65620.169366057627355 (code B ref 65620); Sat, 02 Sep 2023 13:17:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 65620) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Sep 2023 13:16:16 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35448 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1qcQU3-000778-L1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 02 Sep 2023 09:16:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-lf1-x12e.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]:50464) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1qcQU1-00076i-ML for 65620@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 02 Sep 2023 09:16:14 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-lf1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-4ff8f2630e3so19765e87.1 for <65620@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 02 Sep 2023 06:16:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1693660557; x=1694265357; darn=debbugs.gnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=9/Lv8mWc8w5jUvVBn/wW3/WrWQp5dzwwJl766QNfXZY=; b=fzJHIA3q76qybNKP4qRfRx1fBfEIEW9edYVtMpwCYne6yskX3Izf3pNhYsjpbeIFYo v26/5GRw0oaH1pWyi09DVh/ukgJYUrWjqDJNA8xIUi//sN0rm1CdN6NfaNh7I0392DQ1 SV63vGJxyn3mIU6z3C1WHwwbWJgzsFoeZDLvd5Gvcuq5luTYc8T6JCJNFALNltx6NCd/ yMWLlMaWA9lXYH5q5eo9q0dDvABlou3YGpgrGCu+uHc7AK3vJpqkrJ1438sRJnq1PAf0 TqUlQZt1MgFcl2h3MO0yYnpTwPUdtHuGuCbBfFPMixJqqupEKRlqVWYoIlvLbqOHNJbu Ii1Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1693660557; x=1694265357; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9/Lv8mWc8w5jUvVBn/wW3/WrWQp5dzwwJl766QNfXZY=; b=TByS/KqrZgXuhwDGziXvLGAUehLjwtvscQPKw66I1wOcAPUvweliFbCsFS4yZ1hW+Q NLgBzc2iJpW1MNsMRzaTX/qE5l2ci5r6H5QdTBUGqWvyBpwxjzlAfD41GsT/dFOYIN88 2ysgN+BzTHonLi3rzWQ28NZJfGGXtl868KBix5awipDQ5hZEaNNjqwp229qpAaHnDmPd l0agPRrzL4QG5zCEe1vp42mpT8TxsNlbyM44HK1hGCIy0vXPdrBw7CKRGLmwYI35UrIp ie0rg93hFDgtWm16c+mzIYTcVEAfe1X1onyu9Usd728J/Qta6dwElnSFNCU31bNgsAHi IxGA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxVnkylLdDlvymzx22I/0DMzniXuksBMG5Oqwj4elXDrKbXkpH9 +F/nz3S/9frIjtVPtpd/OG6L3AjjYnm6Rg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHuLBtxwa/Gy3ljkyPjyhRTm/BlhGzlQoKA5EUjPTNB90enotg81HFvU3oHjyqYSz8LDc070A== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:2245:b0:4fb:8435:3efc with SMTP id i5-20020a056512224500b004fb84353efcmr4344563lfu.16.1693660557310; Sat, 02 Sep 2023 06:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from Mini.fritz.box (pd9e362c0.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [217.227.98.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e23-20020aa7d7d7000000b00525683f9b2fsm3351237eds.5.2023.09.02.06.15.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 02 Sep 2023 06:15:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Sat, 2 Sep 2023 13:10:21 +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:268997 Archived-At: Alan Mackenzie writes: > Hello again, Gerd. > > On Sat, Sep 02, 2023 at 06:27:32 +0200, Gerd M=C3=B6llmann wrote: >> Alan Mackenzie writes: > >> > Here's a working patch with a slight improvement: the error message >> > identifies the macro suspected of having an erroneous edebug spec. > >> Maybe we could also add to the comment for edebug-before that basically >> any of the instrumented form in the context you describe can lead to >> errors? > >> I believe, if IFORM is such an instrumented form, something like > >> (let ((x IFORM)) >> ...) > >> in some macro will also error.=20 > > I've not been able to produce an error at macro-exansion time with a > form like that.=20=20 Ok. > So I haven't amended that comment, yet. However, edebugging through a > function which invoked such a macro can produce errors. This is all > caused by having a `form' element in the edebug spec where there > should be `sexp'. > > To try and ameliorate this, I propose adding a sentence to the > description of `sexp' in doc/lispref/edebug.texi: > > > diff --git a/doc/lispref/edebug.texi b/doc/lispref/edebug.texi > index c5be3a40d2c..a64ebda6803 100644 > --- a/doc/lispref/edebug.texi > +++ b/doc/lispref/edebug.texi > @@ -1289,6 +1289,8 @@ Specification List > @item sexp > A single unevaluated Lisp object, which is not instrumented. > @c an "expression" is not necessarily intended for evaluation. > +If the macro evaluates an argument at macro-expansion time, you should > +use @code{sexp} for it, not @code{form}. >=20=20 > @item form > A single evaluated expression, which is instrumented. If your macro > Yes, that's helpful.