From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Helmut Eller Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#9463: 24.0.50; Errors should not be continuable Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 08:53:02 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1315551250 28367 80.91.229.12 (9 Sep 2011 06:54:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:54:10 +0000 (UTC) To: 9463@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 09 08:54:06 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R1uyT-0002rt-Cf for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 08:54:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46016 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R1uyS-00040z-NY for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 02:54:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:59513) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R1uyQ-00040p-8p for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 02:54:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R1uyO-00078j-JP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 02:54:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:49355) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R1uyO-00078f-FK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 02:54:00 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R1v2I-0005rL-7D; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 02:58:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org In-Reply-To: Resent-From: Helmut Eller Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 06:58:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9463 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.131555144922479 (code B ref -1); Fri, 09 Sep 2011 06:58:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Sep 2011 06:57:29 +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 1R1v1l-0005qV-6Y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 02:57:29 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R1v1h-0005qN-CX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 02:57:27 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R1uxl-000765-RX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 02:53:22 -0400 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]:44811) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R1uxl-000761-Q2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 02:53:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:59415) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R1uxk-00040L-Tn for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 02:53:21 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R1uxk-00075r-2X for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 02:53:20 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:41529) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R1uxj-00075j-PC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 02:53:20 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R1uxg-0002Y4-Ev for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 08:53:16 +0200 Original-Received: from dial-176163.pool.broadband44.net ([212.46.176.163]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 08:53:16 +0200 Original-Received: from eller.helmut by dial-176163.pool.broadband44.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 08:53:16 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 58 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: dial-176163.pool.broadband44.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:vs9h58g8pzRmY1G6J9AzXROgF+8= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 02:58:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:50735 Archived-At: * Stefan Monnier [2011-09-09 02:23] writes: >>>> emacs -Q -eval '(let ((debug-on-error t)) (error "foo"))' >>>> enters the debugger. Pressing c somehow manages to continue. That make >>>> no sense to me. The debugger should instead not continue and say >>>> that errors are not continuable. >>> >>> "c" in errors now "continues" in the sense of "do what would have >>> happened if the debugger had not been called". I.e. it will actually >>> signal the error which can then be caught by condition-cases further up >>> the stack, .... I.e. it's very similar to what happens with "q", but is >>> often cleaner. >> I think the "do what would have happened if the debugger had not been >> called" thing should be a different command, like resignal or abort. > > Why? 1. Why not? > When the debugger is called in a non-error case, the "c" does just > that "do whatever would have happened if the debug call had no taken place". 2. it's an incompatible change 3. it's frustrating when people introduce DWIM-ish features when my expectations are completely different > >> c should only continue from truly continuable situations, like >> breakpoints. > > Again: why? 4. it's easy to accidentally press c when using d and c multiple times 5. I have already lost valuable information (and time) because of this too eager stack unwinding. 6. there is nothing wrong with the traditional distinction between continuable and non-continuable situations > > > Stefan > > PS: The change you seem to dislike is a bug-fix in my opinion, and it has > fixed a few real problems It introduced a new bug: r can now be used in every situation. > (e.g. when you enter the debugger from within > a minibuffer, you can now continue your minibuffer operation, whereas > earlier you could only abort back to the top-level). You could do that just as well with a separate resignal command. Helmut