GNU bug report logs - #24514
24.5; [WIP][PATCH] Lispy backtraces

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Vasilij Schneidermann <v.schneidermann <at> gmail.com>

Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 23:17:01 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: patch

Found in version 24.5

Done: Vasilij Schneidermann <v.schneidermann <at> gmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #11 received at 24514 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pit <at> gmail.com>
To: Vasilij Schneidermann <v.schneidermann <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#24514: 24.5; [WIP][PATCH] Lispy backtraces
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:22:13 -0400
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
This looks great! I love it.  And the patch looks very clean, too.

But it scares me a bit.  Some tools do depend on e.g. trimming a backtrace after printing it.  Does edebug work with your patch, for example?

I'm not sure what the right way to transition is.  Maybe Emacs should let Lisp programs access the backtraces in a structured way, and then backtrace printing would only be a user-facing facility (programs wouldn't use the textual representation).

Cheers,
Clément.

On 2016-09-22 19:14, Vasilij Schneidermann wrote:
> I wrote a minimal patch that increases the overall consistency in a
> backtrace buffer by printing the call stack frames as S-Expressions.
> 
> Before:
> 
> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument number-or-marker-p t)
>   +(1 t)
>   eval((+ 1 t) nil)
>   eval-expression((+ 1 t) nil)
>   call-interactively(eval-expression nil nil)
>   command-execute(eval-expression)
> 
> After:
> 
> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument number-or-marker-p t)
>   (debug error (wrong-type-argument number-or-marker-p t))
>   (+ 1 t)
>   (eval (+ 1 t) nil)
>   (eval-expression (+ 1 t) nil)
>   (funcall-interactively eval-expression (+ 1 t) nil)
>   (call-interactively eval-expression nil nil)
>   (command-execute eval-expression)
> 
> Now, this patch isn't perfect.  For some reason there's an extra debug
> line in the second version, I've yet to investigate into the reason for
> this.  The other problem is that while I can't imagine any reason to go
> back to the original view of the backtrace, I cannot rule out that this
> change might break other tools relying on it.  I'd appreciate any
> feedback on this.
> 

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

This bug report was last modified 8 years and 221 days ago.

Previous Next


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