GNU bug report logs - #23648
[PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be unintentionally modified

Previous Next

Full log

Message #38 received at 23648 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net
Cc: michael_heerdegen <at> web.de, 23648 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, pogonyshev <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#23648: [PATCH] `defun-declarations-alist' can be
 unintentionally modified
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:22:59 +0300

> From: npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net
> Cc: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>,  23648 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  pogonyshev <at> gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 21:09:42 -0400
> 
> > Thanks, but I'm still none the wiser about the questions I asked.
> 
> Hmm, maybe it will be clearer like this:
> 
> Evaluate:
> 
> (macroexpand '(defun foo ()
>                 (declare (indent 1))
>                 nil)) ;=> (prog1 (defalias (quote foo) (function (lambda nil 
> nil))) (function-put (quote foo) (quote lisp-indent-function) (quote 1)))
> 
> This gives the correct result (the (function-put...) part comes from the
> (declare (indent 1))).
> 
> Now perform a completion on a declare clause, e.g., put cursor after
> "ind" and hit C-M-i: (declare (ind)) completes to (declare (indent)).
> 
> Now evaluate the same expression as before:
> 
> (macroexpand '(defun foo ()
>                 (declare (indent 1))
>                 nil)) ;=> (prog1 (defalias (quote foo) (function (lambda nil 
> nil))) "Warning: Unknown defun property ‘indent’ in foo")
> 
> This give the wrong result, the (declare (indent 1)) is giving the
> "Warning:...".  Emacs has unlearned the indent declaration.  In fact it
> unlearned all the declarations for defun except for gv-setter, you can
> see this by looking at defun-declarations-alist's value.

Thanks, but I think we are mis-communicating.  What I need is not a
demonstration of the bug in action; I already got that.  What I asked
for is different:

> How probable is the situation where this problem pops up?  And when
> was the bug introduced?

You already answered the second question.  For the first, I expected
to see something done frequently by either users or Lisp programs,
which bumps into this bug.  Evaluating macroexpand, twice, with
completion in-between, doesn't qualify in my book as a frequent user
action, I hope you will agree (even if you personally happen to use it
quite a lot).

So I'm still looking for the answer to the "how probable" question.  I
need that to make up my mind about the urgency of the fix.

Thanks.

Previous Next

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