Subject: bug#13154: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt (different one)

From: martin rudalics <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:26:41 +0100

>> FWIW, it's not clear to me that `w-o-t-t-b' inside `s-e' is "evil".  It might be
 >> ineffectual in some contexts, in the sense that it might not do what some users
 >> mistakenly might expect, but - for my own understanding - just why do you
 >> consider it evil?
 >
 > Martin will probably tell,

It's evil because `with-output-to-temp-buffer' may pop up a new frame
while `save-window-excursion' gives you the false impression that it can
cope with that situation.

 > but in any case I don't think this is
 > related to the abort we are discussing.

It should be unrelated.

 >> * I found an occurrence in my version of `describe-function', which is based on
 >> the vanilla Emacs 22 version in this respect.  It has to work for 22+, and 22
 >> does not have macro `with-help-window'.  (Yes, I could duplicate the code and
 >> have a version for Emacs 23+...)  In my own help commands (`describe-file',
 >> `describe-keymap'), I do not use `save-excursion.
 >>
 >> * I found one other occurrence of `with-output-to-temp-buffer' inside
 >> `save-excursion', but that code is used only when running Emacs 22, and it is a
 >> copy of the vanilla Emacs 22 code (for `describe-text-properties').  IOW, the
 >> fault is with vanilla Emacs in this case, and this case cannot be manifested in
 >> Emacs 24 anyway.

`save-window-excursion' and not `save-excursion', I presume.

 > We are looking for Lisp code that would show calls to some primitives,
 > wherein we could look for potential bugs on the C level.  Does the
 > body of Lisp code inside save-excursion in the first occurrence call
 > any primitives, or any functions at all?  If so, can you show that
 > body?

I still don't know whether you are sure that Drew runs some code within
`window-configuration-change-hook'.

martin