From unknown Wed Jun 18 23:06:55 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#24649 <24649@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#24649 <24649@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: 24.5; Why no standard error for "Trailing garbage following expression"? Reply-To: bug#24649 <24649@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 06:06:55 +0000 retitle 24649 24.5; Why no standard error for "Trailing garbage following e= xpression"? reassign 24649 emacs submitter 24649 Drew Adams severity 24649 minor tag 24649 fixed patch thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Oct 09 14:03:29 2016 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Oct 2016 18:03:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50201 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1btIRd-0000Js-0I for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2016 14:03:29 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60677) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1btIRZ-0000JZ-3g for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2016 14:03:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1btIRT-0004rc-73 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2016 14:03:19 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:34581) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1btIRT-0004qJ-4p for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2016 14:03:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51648) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1btIRQ-0006M1-Ro for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2016 14:03:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1btIRM-0004lq-Kf for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2016 14:03:15 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:22564) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1btIRM-0004iA-Bq for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2016 14:03:12 -0400 Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u99I37dw027067 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2016 18:03:07 GMT Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by userv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u99I36IR010787 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2016 18:03:07 GMT Received: from abhmp0019.oracle.com (abhmp0019.oracle.com [141.146.116.25]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u99I34j9026552 for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2016 18:03:05 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <58b6fb05-499d-4406-9bac-9c0889a588b8@default> Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 18:03:04 +0000 (UTC) From: Drew Adams To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 24.5; Why no standard error for "Trailing garbage following expression"? X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 12.0.6753.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) Shouldn't this error be a standard error? If not a new standard error, shouldn't it at least use one of the existing standard errors, such as `scan-error' or `invalid-read-syntax'? Otherwise, how to easily handle this error (e.g., to tell the user to correct the input being read and then read again)? In GNU Emacs 24.5.1 (i686-pc-mingw32) of 2015-04-11 on LEG570 Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601 Configured using: `configure --prefix=3D/c/usr --host=3Di686-pc-mingw32' From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jul 27 10:11:58 2019 Received: (at 24649) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Jul 2019 14:11:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45087 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hrNQU-00024v-Jo for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 10:11:58 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:39412) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hrNQT-00024l-FN for 24649@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 10:11:58 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hrNQP-0001Ru-Bx; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 16:11:55 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Drew Adams Subject: Re: bug#24649: 24.5; Why no standard error for "Trailing garbage following expression"? References: <58b6fb05-499d-4406-9bac-9c0889a588b8@default> Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 16:11:52 +0200 In-Reply-To: <58b6fb05-499d-4406-9bac-9c0889a588b8@default> (Drew Adams's message of "Sun, 9 Oct 2016 18:03:04 +0000 (UTC)") Message-ID: <875znnh8if.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Drew Adams writes: > Shouldn't this error be a standard error? If not a new standard error, > shouldn't it at least use one of the existing standard errors, such as > `scan-error' or `invalid-read-syntax'? > > Otherwise [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24649 Cc: 24649@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Drew Adams writes: > Shouldn't this error be a standard error? If not a new standard error, > shouldn't it at least use one of the existing standard errors, such as > `scan-error' or `invalid-read-syntax'? > > Otherwise, how to easily handle this error (e.g., to tell the user to > correct the input being read and then read again)? Makes sense to me. I'm not sure what signal to use, though -- anybody got an idea? Tentative patch: diff --git a/src/minibuf.c b/src/minibuf.c index 14a0dbe762..f6cf47f1f2 100644 --- a/src/minibuf.c +++ b/src/minibuf.c @@ -169,7 +169,8 @@ string_to_object (Lisp_Object val, Lisp_Object defalt) { int c = SREF (val, i); if (c != ' ' && c != '\t' && c != '\n') - error ("Trailing garbage following expression"); + xsignal1 (Qinvalid_read_syntax, + build_string ("Trailing garbage following expression")); } } -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jul 27 10:12:03 2019 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Jul 2019 14:12:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45091 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hrNQY-00025X-S1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 10:12:03 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:39426) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hrNQX-000254-Ds for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 10:12:01 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hrNQU-0001S1-Ss for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 16:12:00 +0200 Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 16:11:58 +0200 Message-Id: <874l37h8i9.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #24649 X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: tags 24649 + patch quit Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) tags 24649 + patch quit From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Aug 22 20:25:44 2019 Received: (at 24649) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Aug 2019 00:25:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38585 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1i0xOi-0001pW-Fi for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 20:25:44 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:36136) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1i0xOg-0001pL-4S for 24649@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 20:25:42 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1i0xOb-0001tP-L4; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 02:25:41 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Drew Adams Subject: Re: bug#24649: 24.5; Why no standard error for "Trailing garbage following expression"? References: <58b6fb05-499d-4406-9bac-9c0889a588b8@default> <875znnh8if.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 02:25:37 +0200 In-Reply-To: <875znnh8if.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Sat, 27 Jul 2019 16:11:52 +0200") Message-ID: <8736hsbuda.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > Drew Adams writes: > >> Shouldn't this error be a standard error? If not a new standard error, >> shouldn't it at least use one of the existing standard errors, such as >> `s [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24649 Cc: 24649@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > Drew Adams writes: > >> Shouldn't this error be a standard error? If not a new standard error, >> shouldn't it at least use one of the existing standard errors, such as >> `scan-error' or `invalid-read-syntax'? >> >> Otherwise, how to easily handle this error (e.g., to tell the user to >> correct the input being read and then read again)? > > Makes sense to me. I'm not sure what signal to use, though -- anybody > got an idea? [...] > + xsignal1 (Qinvalid_read_syntax, > + build_string ("Trailing garbage following expression")); There weren't any comments, so I've now applied this. If somebody has a better idea for the error signal, please amend. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Aug 22 20:25:50 2019 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Aug 2019 00:25:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38588 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1i0xOn-0001pq-OC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 20:25:49 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:36150) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1i0xOm-0001ph-3L for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 20:25:48 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1i0xOj-0001tW-HW for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 02:25:47 +0200 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 02:25:45 +0200 Message-Id: <871rxcbud2.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #24649 X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: tags 24649 fixed close 24649 27.1 quit Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) tags 24649 fixed close 24649 27.1 quit From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Aug 23 04:06:49 2019 Received: (at 24649) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Aug 2019 08:06:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39090 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1i14au-0007qG-SC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 04:06:49 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:59497) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1i14as-0007q3-RP for 24649@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 04:06:47 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:54328) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i14an-0000Af-Ft; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 04:06:41 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3578 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1i14am-0001e0-Ge; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 04:06:41 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:06:50 +0300 Message-Id: <83imqob90l.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Lars Ingebrigtsen In-reply-to: <8736hsbuda.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Fri, 23 Aug 2019 02:25:37 +0200) Subject: Re: bug#24649: 24.5; Why no standard error for "Trailing garbage following expression"? References: <58b6fb05-499d-4406-9bac-9c0889a588b8@default> <875znnh8if.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <8736hsbuda.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24649 Cc: 24649@debbugs.gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 02:25:37 +0200 > Cc: 24649@debbugs.gnu.org > > >> Shouldn't this error be a standard error? If not a new standard error, > >> shouldn't it at least use one of the existing standard errors, such as > >> `scan-error' or `invalid-read-syntax'? > >> > >> Otherwise, how to easily handle this error (e.g., to tell the user to > >> correct the input being read and then read again)? > > > > Makes sense to me. I'm not sure what signal to use, though -- anybody > > got an idea? > > [...] > > > + xsignal1 (Qinvalid_read_syntax, > > + build_string ("Trailing garbage following expression")); > > There weren't any comments, so I've now applied this. If somebody has a > better idea for the error signal, please amend. Thanks, but this change needs to be reflected in the ELisp manual, where currently invalid-read-syntax is documented for a different use case. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Aug 23 04:16:10 2019 Received: (at 24649) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Aug 2019 08:16:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39113 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1i14jy-0000hG-M0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 04:16:10 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:42718) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1i14jw-0000eq-9N for 24649@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 04:16:08 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1i14jt-0005Iq-1k; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 10:16:07 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#24649: 24.5; Why no standard error for "Trailing garbage following expression"? References: <58b6fb05-499d-4406-9bac-9c0889a588b8@default> <875znnh8if.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <8736hsbuda.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <83imqob90l.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 10:16:04 +0200 In-Reply-To: <83imqob90l.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:06:50 +0300") Message-ID: <87zhk0b8l7.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> > + xsignal1 (Qinvalid_read_syntax, >> > + build_string ("Trailing garbage following expression")); >> >> There weren't any comments, so I've now applied this. If somebody has a >> better idea for [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24649 Cc: 24649@debbugs.gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> > + xsignal1 (Qinvalid_read_syntax, >> > + build_string ("Trailing garbage following expression")); >> >> There weren't any comments, so I've now applied this. If somebody has a >> better idea for the error signal, please amend. > > Thanks, but this change needs to be reflected in the ELisp manual, > where currently invalid-read-syntax is documented for a different use > case. Let's see... Qargs_out_of_range would be inappropriate... And Qwrong_type_argument... Perhaps the closest one of the predefined errors would be Qend_of_file? Or we could have a new one. `garbage-follows-expression'? That's pretty explicit. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Aug 23 05:19:53 2019 Received: (at 24649) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Aug 2019 09:19:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39152 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1i15jc-0003Jo-UQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 05:19:53 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:42403) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1i15jZ-0003Ja-E8 for 24649@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 05:19:49 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:56885) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i15hu-00082E-GM; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 05:19:43 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4029 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1i15ht-0007Qf-W9; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 05:18:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:18:16 +0300 Message-Id: <835zmob5pj.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Lars Ingebrigtsen In-reply-to: <87zhk0b8l7.fsf@gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Fri, 23 Aug 2019 10:16:04 +0200) Subject: Re: bug#24649: 24.5; Why no standard error for "Trailing garbage following expression"? References: <58b6fb05-499d-4406-9bac-9c0889a588b8@default> <875znnh8if.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <8736hsbuda.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <83imqob90l.fsf@gnu.org> <87zhk0b8l7.fsf@gnus.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24649 Cc: 24649@debbugs.gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Cc: drew.adams@oracle.com, 24649@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 10:16:04 +0200 > > >> > + xsignal1 (Qinvalid_read_syntax, > >> > + build_string ("Trailing garbage following expression")); > >> > >> There weren't any comments, so I've now applied this. If somebody has a > >> better idea for the error signal, please amend. > > > > Thanks, but this change needs to be reflected in the ELisp manual, > > where currently invalid-read-syntax is documented for a different use > > case. > > Let's see... Qargs_out_of_range would be inappropriate... And > Qwrong_type_argument... Perhaps the closest one of the predefined > errors would be Qend_of_file? > > Or we could have a new one. `garbage-follows-expression'? That's > pretty explicit. We don't have to invent a new symbol, we just need to document in "Standard errors" that this error is also signaled an the situation described in this bug report. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Aug 23 14:43:14 2019 Received: (at 24649) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Aug 2019 18:43:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41187 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1i1EWo-0003VT-21 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 14:43:14 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:50916) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1i1EWm-0003VJ-8A for 24649@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 14:43:12 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1i1EWi-0001Y8-6f; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 20:43:10 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#24649: 24.5; Why no standard error for "Trailing garbage following expression"? References: <58b6fb05-499d-4406-9bac-9c0889a588b8@default> <875znnh8if.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <8736hsbuda.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <83imqob90l.fsf@gnu.org> <87zhk0b8l7.fsf@gnus.org> <835zmob5pj.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 20:43:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: <835zmob5pj.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:18:16 +0300") Message-ID: <87d0gvbu4k.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Eli Zaretskii writes: > We don't have to invent a new symbol, we just need to document in > "Standard errors" that this error is also signaled an the situation > described in this bug report. Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24649 Cc: 24649@debbugs.gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Eli Zaretskii writes: > We don't have to invent a new symbol, we just need to document in > "Standard errors" that this error is also signaled an the situation > described in this bug report. I see. I've now done so on the trunk. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From unknown Wed Jun 18 23:06:55 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2019 11:24:05 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator