GNU bug report logs - #21422
25.0.50; apropos-library on libraries using cl-def{generic,method} fails

Previous Next

Full log

Message #11 received at 21422 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Mark Oteiza <mvoteiza <at> udel.edu>
Cc: 21422 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#21422: 25.0.50;
 apropos-library on libraries using cl-def{generic,method} fails
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 22:06:19 +0200

> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 14:06:40 -0500
> From: Mark Oteiza <mvoteiza <at> udel.edu>
> 
> >   apropos-library("cl-generic")
> >   funcall-interactively(apropos-library "cl-generic")
> >   call-interactively(apropos-library record nil)
> >   command-execute(apropos-library record)
> >   execute-extended-command(nil "apropos-library" nil)
> >   funcall-interactively(execute-extended-command nil "apropos-library" nil)
> >   call-interactively(execute-extended-command nil nil)
> >   command-execute(execute-extended-command)
> > 
> > I came across this because doing M-. on a function defined with
> > cl-defgeneric and cl-defmethod doesn't go to the definition, just the
> > top of the library, so apropos-library was my backup. I don't know if
> > the xref behavior should be a separate report.
> 
> cl-generic is used pretty widely, and apropos-library fails on libraries
> using it. Could this be marked to be fixed before release?

IMO, we should only do that if it's practical, i.e. if there's someone
who would work on fixing that.

I'd also suggest to have bug#22294 be the release blocker, if we have
a volunteer to work on it.

Previous Next

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