Subject: bug#24870: 26.0.50; parse-partial-sexp ignores comment-end

From: Alan Mackenzie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:14:28 +0000

Hello, Noam.

Sorry this has taken me more time than I anticipated; it's a busy time
of the year.  :-(

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:39:11AM -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie <[email-masked]> writes:

> > Hello, Noam.

> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:33:36AM -0500, Noam Postavsky wrote:

[ .... ]

> >> > Do you want to make this fix, or should I do it?  If you want to
> >> > do it, I'm willing (indeed, eager) to review it for you.

> >> I'll have a patch ready in a day or two.

[ .... ]

> Okay, here it is.  I think I've made this function a bit less twisty,
> and hopefully haven't broken anything new (make check is still passing).

syntax.c looks good.  It looks very good.  I've just got one trivial
comment:

(i) The new function `check_comment_start' doesn't have a comment saying
what its return value means.  Possibly you could instead rename it so
that the name implies what it returns.  Maybe something like
`in_double_comment_opener'.

I'll admit I haven't actually tried out the code, mainly because you've
written a test file.  One comment about the test file:

(ii) In `parse-partial-sexp-continue-over-comment-marker', variable aftC
is the position in the middle of the comment closer "*/".  I don't think
you are testing in any way that element 10 (nil, or the syntax of the
position just before the end point when that position might be the first
character of a two-character construct, i.e. an escape or first char of a
double-char comment delimiter) is correct.  This element 10 was newly
introduced this year.  Would you please consider adding such a test to
this new test file.  Thanks!

Otherwise, excellent!

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).