GNU bug report logs - #19102
24.4; outline-move-subtree-up/down error at last and second-last subtree

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Paul Rankin <paul <at> tilk.co>

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:34:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Found in version 24.4

Done: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman <at> gmx.net>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #62 received at 19102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman <at> gmx.net>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: paul <at> tilk.co, 19102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#19102: 24.4;
 outline-move-subtree-up/down error at last and second-last subtree
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 21:56:07 +0200
> From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman <at> gmx.net>
> Cc: paul <at> tilk.co,  19102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 18:31:19 +0100
> 
> >> But can C-g really take effect here?
> >> There is no place in the function where execution halts to wait for user
> >> feedback.
> >
> > C-g sets a flag that is checked by evaluation.
> 
> I don't understand how this could result in C-g taking effect before the
> function finishes; could you elaborate?

C-g sets a "quit" flag.  When Lisp evaluation takes place and the quit
flag is set, the Lisp interpreter throws to top-level, thus
interrupting whatever function was running.

> I think that, once the non-file buffer case is taken into account (and
> not doing means moving a subtree can corrupt the outline by putting two
> headers on the same line), the cleanest fix is basically the one Paul
> Rankin proposed in his last post.  I've attached it as a diff against
> emacs-24, where I assume the fix should be committed (I added a comment
> and tweaked the function Paul posted to avoid irrelevant changes to the
> current code, and also restricted the error handling by making it a
> user-error and having it signal only when the user attempts to move over
> a higher outline level, avoiding an inappropriate message at bob or
> eob).  Does this patch qualify as a tiny change, or does Paul have a
> copyright assignment on file (I don't have access to the file)?

I don't see his assignment.  IMO, this patch is borderline wrt being
"tiny"; I'll let Stefan judge.




This bug report was last modified 10 years and 237 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.