GNU bug report logs - #23264
25.0.90; `C-h f' (`describe-function'): "This function has a compiler macro"

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>

Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 18:49:02 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: moreinfo

Found in version 25.0.90

Fixed in version 29.1

Done: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #16 received at 23264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 23264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
 Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Subject: Re: bug#23264: 25.0.90; `C-h f' (`describe-function'): "This
 function has a compiler macro"
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 17:59:13 +0200
Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> 1- If it includes a link to the compiler macro.  Admittedly, compiler
>    macros are supposed to be placed directly inside the `declare` of the
>    function, so you can get there via the usual link to the function's
>    definition, which makes this link's usefulness rather marginal.
>    (except in theory for those rare exceptions where the compiler macro
>    is not provided via `declare`, but to be honest, I can't think of any
>    and `grep` couldn't find any either).

There's this:

(put 'featurep 'compiler-macro
     (lambda (form feature &rest _ignore)
       ;; Emacs-21's byte-code doesn't run under XEmacs or SXEmacs anyway, so
       ;; we can safely optimize away this test.
       (if (member feature '('xemacs 'sxemacs 'emacs))
           (eval form)
         form)))

But that's not a symbol, so Emacs won't offer up a button for it.  But
it is indeed extremely rare.

> 2- It warns that advice and (more generally) redefinitions of this
>    function may not be obeys at all call sites.

Hm, yes, that can be handy to know.

> Point 1 is quite weak.
> Point 2 is a bit more interesting but then we should say so more
> explicitly and (more importantly) we should also say so for those
> functions which have the same property but for other reasons (e.g. they
> have their own byte-code, or they have a `byte-compile` or
> `byte-optimizer` property).
>
> IOW, I agree but maybe it would be a good idea to replace it with
> a better message that covers this and similar cases warning about
> applicability of `advice`.

Do you have any suggested text?  🙃

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no




This bug report was last modified 3 years and 67 days ago.

Previous Next


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