From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Oct 08 11:03:53 2017 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Oct 2017 15:03:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56504 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e1D7R-0004Fd-9u for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:03:53 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58770) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e1D7P-0004FQ-NQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:03:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e1D7J-00084L-Pl for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:03:46 -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,FREEMAIL_FROM, T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:48133) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e1D7J-00084H-MO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:03:45 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49739) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e1D7I-0001GU-HJ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:03:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e1D7E-00082V-Fr for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:03:44 -0400 Received: from aibo.runbox.com ([91.220.196.211]:37552) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e1D7E-000808-4Y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:03:40 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=runbox.com; s=rbselector1; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:To:From; bh=X8ib8o2lY/0fsGB1uRrfE6S4puyIqvYh+O2czu9TsfY=; b=KQ5u0CXUqaQV/E71DXa5KNOjF XMux+BxKkk+xBDckAFRjVvyvBoaLBRJNsmzfvaGYSS8UIMYQqFO8OHF5qNfoIjdJbPb4m/RGSpq4C SXGZQPk2q//DiDfN2HXM7BZKh2WrVu6XFHfrY+Zrrm2srkiuELVahDx6Y1vRjTrRwUUdIczrGW7sU jiSMx6iWs3pkRgpYDMveS5/pWzEOY9rmeWAMLhnRejhGWOsl1MHOraUK/3eGzDDnGG+ODFJBpD5CH +TViZLB6MD44T0sww5e7GRui5QV6E4Vv25Mex9QlMSszAWhGudR/ybRJOF5f3Lof6BlQMy349raor yhAt+K+qQ==; Received: from [10.9.9.210] (helo=mailfront10.runbox.com) by mailtransmit03.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e1D78-0002Jz-Ea for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 17:03:34 +0200 Received: from c-24-22-244-161.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([24.22.244.161] helo=chinook) by mailfront10.runbox.com with esmtpsa (uid:179284 ) (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) id 1e1D6Y-00079d-Ux for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 17:02:59 +0200 From: Gemini Lasswell To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 08:02:56 -0700 Message-ID: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----) 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: -4.1 (----) The symbol &rest in an Edebug spec has a different meaning than it has in an argument list. In particular, "&rest body" in an Edebug spec is erroneous usage because it is asking Edebug to match something that can match nothing (body) as many times as it can, which makes an infinite loop. To repro, navigate to the definition of crm-completion-help in lisp/emacs-lisp/crm.el and: M-x eval-buffer RET C-u C-M-x Result: Too deep - perhaps infinite loop in spec? Here are the macros I've found that have this incorrect usage of &rest in their Edebug specs: crm--completion-command easy-mmode-define-navigation inline--letlisteval inline--leteval ses--letref Edebug specs have been using &rest for a really long time and it mostly gets used correctly. But &repeat would be better, since it actually describes the functionality and doesn't have a completely different and more common usage in argument lists. Here's a little example of what an Edebug spec would look like with &repeat in place of &rest: (defmacro msgmac (&rest args) (declare (debug ("start" [&repeat "middle"] "end"))) `(message "%s" ',args)) (defun use-msgmac () (msgmac start end) (msgmac start middle end) (msgmac start middle middle end)) Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of adding &repeat as a synonym for &rest in Edebug specs, with the goal of moving &rest towards obsolescence eventually? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Oct 12 20:54:34 2017 Received: (at 28747) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Oct 2017 00:54:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36502 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e2oFG-0001wc-A0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 20:54:34 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f42.google.com ([209.85.214.42]:46927) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e2oFC-0001wM-MW for 28747@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 20:54:31 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-f42.google.com with SMTP id f187so9456944itb.1 for <28747@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:54:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=rxAv2PxGa0HWonM12UA11kzHtUjButJJyzt8BW68BC4=; b=FYO5jeBndZBmt3bN2FuEofGR5XfuaPDHzueXieG5Y0WL4g4I6x8pemzekFdDiV2iq5 1+U1j4R0i1+nGURjC2DuwQOxc7Qur3hp5ELrq40djB2VdfyP3/IoT/ZbDxuHzzO4HqhU 0uftT2RYwWGlWtACgtYvXd62cakZHs6rO7dVSa15d/OISdliKM7LY6Ji+9w1Xuq8QuNB XOGAPmHt7ZdWSmwt/+fSOZ48KSBboDo9PJzhjCRp9k9aYvAKjFKXZ/rvxFdwSTk4geII HBZeEr/wv2ItbX07AHgGr9xVasa5KzZhRbmYseAZgm0VszrvDsRAQzSiGt66/4jRwQYo 88xA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=rxAv2PxGa0HWonM12UA11kzHtUjButJJyzt8BW68BC4=; b=cImVRPCQRUVTBm15eEqbZEWjX6AVuHVwoKVN9UNz0KtWbrF+eh3b37aLzYoYMbaqPJ l/pZhwrL2DiaUt/fENh2C2dHg9zDDxJHjEMIs5Ha0/yVxHWIvvBfHithprUHMNho5wZS Isg0IEZKLdYbvvcBZKcx2y0f7Coo3soLJ83biuLPo8D3xYhT5ev67p9883kwVUYGWXZP GNxVI6mYDnsEflhvNZQHS4thrrx4Bz4z32ePkdyUH+TahkU2q10mFWHUotbEFXl8JGHa WQq3DBhYfnmYSAygSVUqDq4hX8vUxIQ5cvGM3sZUSNqRNS6EtiMwRWevss9Lz4VT/QsU 0k1Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXpCgteXnS/o5r2uo0bDTzJYsdY2F+cx5SD2EZYRDWMUKnxTTFJ DWp3sUZb/FrorhnmNimTWGgHvA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+TOA3Mj8wcvy5+KesKqZsqvLlqpayn56hNO1C5jmjuj1jZKfksBZ0gXIdwFA7b+j7mgqX3j+w== X-Received: by 10.36.29.208 with SMTP id 199mr103411itj.40.1507856064815; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zebian ([45.2.119.34]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id h131sm1141764itd.2.2017.10.12.17.54.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:54:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Noam Postavsky To: Gemini Lasswell Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs References: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 20:54:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> (Gemini Lasswell's message of "Sun, 08 Oct 2017 08:02:56 -0700") Message-ID: <87fuanc1fl.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.60 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28747 Cc: 28747@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: 0.7 (/) Gemini Lasswell writes: > The symbol &rest in an Edebug spec has a different meaning than it has > in an argument list. In particular, "&rest body" in an Edebug spec is > erroneous usage because it is asking Edebug to match something that > can match nothing (body) as many times as it can, which makes an > infinite loop. > Here are the macros I've found that have this incorrect usage of &rest > in their Edebug specs: > > crm--completion-command > easy-mmode-define-navigation > inline--letlisteval > inline--leteval > ses--letref > Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of adding &repeat as a synonym > for &rest in Edebug specs, with the goal of moving &rest towards > obsolescence eventually? Makes sense to me, edebug specs can get pretty complicated. Anything which makes silly errors less likely is a win. I wonder if would be worth trying to catch '&rest body' specs earlier (ideally at compile time)? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Oct 15 22:45:50 2019 Received: (at 28747) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Oct 2019 02:45:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45069 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iKZJs-0005Zn-Cd for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 22:45:50 -0400 Received: from [80.91.231.51] (port=45026 helo=quimby.gnus.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iKZJp-0005Zd-Td for 28747@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 22:45:46 -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 1iKZJl-00081E-CK; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:45:43 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Gemini Lasswell Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs References: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:45:40 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> (Gemini Lasswell's message of "Sun, 08 Oct 2017 08:02:56 -0700") Message-ID: <87sgnto1bf.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: Gemini Lasswell writes: > The symbol &rest in an Edebug spec has a different meaning than it has > in an argument list. In particular, "&rest body" in an Edebug spec is > erroneous usage because it is asking Edebug to match [...] 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: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.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 the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Gemini Lasswell writes: > The symbol &rest in an Edebug spec has a different meaning than it has > in an argument list. In particular, "&rest body" in an Edebug spec is > erroneous usage because it is asking Edebug to match [...] Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 SPF_NONE SPF: sender does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: ingebrigtsen.no] 1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28747 Cc: 28747@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: 0.3 (/) Gemini Lasswell writes: > The symbol &rest in an Edebug spec has a different meaning than it has > in an argument list. In particular, "&rest body" in an Edebug spec is > erroneous usage because it is asking Edebug to match something that > can match nothing (body) as many times as it can, which makes an > infinite loop. [...] > Here are the macros I've found that have this incorrect usage of &rest > in their Edebug specs: > > crm--completion-command > easy-mmode-define-navigation > inline--letlisteval > inline--leteval > ses--letref I've now fixed these. > Edebug specs have been using &rest for a really long time and it > mostly gets used correctly. But &repeat would be better, since it > actually describes the functionality and doesn't have a completely > different and more common usage in argument lists. > > Here's a little example of what an Edebug spec would look like with > &repeat in place of &rest: > > (defmacro msgmac (&rest args) > (declare (debug ("start" [&repeat "middle"] "end"))) > `(message "%s" ',args)) > > (defun use-msgmac () > (msgmac start end) > (msgmac start middle end) > (msgmac start middle middle end)) > > Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of adding &repeat as a synonym > for &rest in Edebug specs, with the goal of moving &rest towards > obsolescence eventually? I agree that this would be a lot clearer and probably less error-prone than &rest. Does anybody have an opinion here? -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Oct 17 23:12:16 2019 Received: (at 28747) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Oct 2019 03:12:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49109 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iLIga-0002Yb-GG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 23:12:16 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:51202) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iLIgY-0002YP-Sh for 28747@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 23:12:15 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:53679) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iLIgT-00055s-Dd; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 23:12:09 -0400 Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1iLIgS-0003jg-Je; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 23:12:08 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 From: Richard Stallman To: Lars Ingebrigtsen In-Reply-To: <87sgnto1bf.fsf@gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:45:40 +0200) Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs References: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> <87sgnto1bf.fsf@gnus.org> Message-Id: Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 23:12:08 -0400 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: 28747 Cc: gazally@runbox.com, 28747@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: , Reply-To: rms@gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > The symbol &rest in an Edebug spec has a different meaning than it has > > in an argument list. That seems like a confusing wrinkle. Could we possibly change Emacs to smooth it out? -- Dr Richard Stallman Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Oct 17 23:35:20 2019 Received: (at 28747) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Oct 2019 03:35:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49127 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iLJ2u-00037l-4P for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 23:35:20 -0400 Received: from [80.91.231.51] (port=42908 helo=quimby.gnus.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iLJ2s-00037a-1U for 28747@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 23:35:18 -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 1iLJ2o-0000H3-Fv; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 05:35:16 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Richard Stallman Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs References: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> <87sgnto1bf.fsf@gnus.org> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 05:35:14 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Thu, 17 Oct 2019 23:12:08 -0400") Message-ID: <87r23ak9ot.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: Richard Stallman writes: > > > The symbol &rest in an Edebug spec has a different meaning than it has > > > in an argument list. > > That seems like a confusing wrinkle. Could we possibly change Emacs > to smooth it out? 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: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.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 the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Richard Stallman writes: > > > The symbol &rest in an Edebug spec has a different meaning than it has > > > in an argument list. > > That seems like a confusing wrinkle. Could we possibly change Emacs > to smooth it out? Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: ingebrigtsen.no] 0.0 SPF_NONE SPF: sender does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28747 Cc: gazally@runbox.com, 28747@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: 0.3 (/) Richard Stallman writes: > > > The symbol &rest in an Edebug spec has a different meaning than it has > > > in an argument list. > > That seems like a confusing wrinkle. Could we possibly change Emacs > to smooth it out? Yes, the suggestion was to make &repeat a synonym for &rest and then replace all the usages. I'm not sure this is worth the code churn, though -- as was pointed out, virtually all the debug specs gets this right anyway. Does anybody have an opinion? -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Oct 18 10:14:50 2019 Received: (at 28747) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Oct 2019 14:14:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51332 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iLT1m-0007jA-FJ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:14:50 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50090) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iLT1h-0007is-Qo for 28747@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:14:48 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:45741) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iLT1c-0000rd-8E; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:14:40 -0400 Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1iLT1V-0000Ua-Ni; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:14:34 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 From: Richard Stallman To: Lars Ingebrigtsen In-Reply-To: <87r23ak9ot.fsf@gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Fri, 18 Oct 2019 05:35:14 +0200) Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs References: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> <87sgnto1bf.fsf@gnus.org> <87r23ak9ot.fsf@gnus.org> Message-Id: Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:14:33 -0400 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: 28747 Cc: gazally@runbox.com, 28747@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: , Reply-To: rms@gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > I'm not sure this is worth the code churn, though -- as was pointed out, > virtually all the debug specs gets this right anyway. Does anybody have > an opinion? The benefit would be to simplify the specs for Edebug specs. The cost would be to fix the existing ones -- if they would need changing. Would any existing correct ones need changing? -- Dr Richard Stallman Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Oct 19 04:20:35 2019 Received: (at 28747) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Oct 2019 08:20:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51915 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iLjyV-0004gn-6F for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 04:20:35 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:46624) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iLjyS-0004ge-8L for 28747@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 04:20:33 -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 1iLjyO-0003Ul-OD; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 10:20:31 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Richard Stallman Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs References: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> <87sgnto1bf.fsf@gnus.org> <87r23ak9ot.fsf@gnus.org> Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 10:20:28 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:14:33 -0400") Message-ID: <877e51i1tf.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: Richard Stallman writes: > > I'm not sure this is worth the code churn, though -- as was pointed out, > > virtually all the debug specs gets this right anyway. Does anybody have > > an opinion? > > The benefit would be to sim [...] 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: 28747 Cc: gazally@runbox.com, 28747@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 (-) Richard Stallman writes: > > I'm not sure this is worth the code churn, though -- as was pointed out, > > virtually all the debug specs gets this right anyway. Does anybody have > > an opinion? > > The benefit would be to simplify the specs for Edebug specs. > > The cost would be to fix the existing ones -- if they would need changing. > Would any existing correct ones need changing? They wouldn't need changing, but it'd be confusing (for people reading the code) to have some specs with &repeat and some with &rest, so I think we should change them all if we decide to introduce the &repeat alias. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Oct 19 10:02:14 2019 Received: (at 28747) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Oct 2019 14:02:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53444 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iLpJ6-0006sa-86 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 10:02:14 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([217.72.192.78]:40227) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iLpJ3-0006sL-1K for 28747@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 10:02:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=dbaedf251592; t=1571493721; bh=gRIsjND1BO9NuR2RtBYqW+1vlBtWVzZQAKqdxU/xx44=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=eT13HBj3MnSF3VhK3xf0QLx4L/OK6HirL7LWYMyvIgTaxdOymGBs9KOZr4EqahIOe /iDZoGx3QQjfZWnUqF9yFRDS5J9jdQNkYu7GZbBvpEHGhwAJ3gS8+fkioUuFXaj3S+ 6M0fk7Wa7XBvGynOSrND4DLyu5fB2wfNZptCF8zY= X-UI-Sender-Class: c548c8c5-30a9-4db5-a2e7-cb6cb037b8f9 Received: from drachen.dragon ([94.218.222.9]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb101 [213.165.67.124]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MeBPe-1igEER0hZu-00Py77; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 16:02:01 +0200 From: Michael Heerdegen To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs References: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> <87sgnto1bf.fsf@gnus.org> Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 16:02:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87sgnto1bf.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:45:40 +0200") Message-ID: <87wod0sujk.fsf@web.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:OYPJRGTPxUwkG0h4RRNYS79JfFtNyxM+SSaJf+75Rfw57KQCEI+ LCN+twReTLK3D+4JWX3+H268rnSmJSSy7NR7m3B6OjMRagplBROJW0PX8jxIzAKCQb2VR9W fTticKYjd3uEkgjPF5RP9ulThjL2p9083kg8XpvTRefdYdROPjGctnF2RS4lpXKirepDcnZ 73K8s2Kjx+ytSllU96BSA== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:Sdpq/Z6qtzc=:vqn/xqHJ5tBSkEejF+v9nl FuMB8oB4mAwZhUw1vML9ylBGR+suaAvnLm7Qzl0hhsuaFvXy+N9pOL6JKiy8NCR/MTX2cl7du 9LlWIYR26IgIq7YI+cCqRt+x1WMx9mOr86njEeff5uPUMjV/kPkec/jzwKLhkXh1Gfo4U0zlk S6ukfLFeZZd9it5NL9er5oUHrCMfvPUNlBQoFNPEuaahdLAIqEbUMQhi5/ohOxb6jUb8JWPpt GBt7GvUsNNVlyNCOyNQ4YXUZRXLWl7nMvBHZVM8NEL3gsKvliKvgi2MCtu+bBYSTywPnhEcXR Kgq7wYdj/wcse0yZkZvPYPpv++m5kSi/SRm8u1C5VzKxezVN2+hidCBorUgIVX1Rx+ti/saxT 8VD97MEpUTzroj2WhQ5yZNhrFq6m8Ap0K9MmOBFsxr+zsiEIxkCOnCKQ1yJp8+3nFzcXjGA/a kQv8qpHZ1yZ1aeAopcLzB541/z5nOXjtlFdO1TNUmeNJUsNJolkN+AmVyFU7G3Q03T78WYT3X DMLkthUjxvZ2wDGj3PVfuhrnZQ9MLpd6Bk6gRlx7XGvJk1NHxc/pvZV4SVcyXQtza0FJsjWIy cTxh2Y6GeCAmXYHG68f0boGNjvEIHWkrDO+FyArthNemaenksN3jBCCo7yZINWhFWuzNLHg31 iKlvrHzjn2Iets3XhfwEJMuw56YhEWeTy//JihSOyPgiFpDDgXIZfkFGL9lQbc167c26rv7BK Ax4gWUXH2WSvF1ViImi9LVg+ZpnmPZvRI81eRAGDi5EL6Z0tv2e/bSgXNr5cOloBAWVkhflxV CZkG94ZUSqICkLEaNmhLnzEaWnYYt9v7i5JtQ5yGD7kIXkmxX5Xxnz6AtlzNAw1hbOw1v3f9T 1gsKvx4T09FpU6Yedd7G80nt97gDlaDVkGaMCTgEEVglp+n9r6G5XF1CdKgbdy8jfENrrrwN3 0i5IemUAY4wPrLLkfxVJG0peWgpd3op+h34xX+P/NJ1nlPZ2eq5I0gS66imk0v2B/dFO78dh2 xIWdqlcYVPchCjbQKhfFmkUHU6qoCD2CtmDfVl70avNN0bwqwdX0YO5BfM741Xa02Agaqubcq i6iUjZNnCNmlapVBnXt5Yn83Yd6B4L9lC+qWlLCs2D6vsOw92Ijod4Df3KwqxlywWJ368mTfA 5NfYr9cIRjfwNWmnHuXDZYtJ6Omt7OoFnoVNSQny1/PtQ1cGQmCnwOOBZ+RJP5zIOEvVgk7u+ we9CjJH7w7VeXeetvxAnkiuTQroIyCASYjmNmp9WRgYpSGe5nM1SuVGWRrfU= X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28747 Cc: Gemini Lasswell , 28747@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: -1.7 (-) Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > I agree that this would be a lot clearer and probably less error-prone > than &rest. > > Does anybody have an opinion here? It could be worth changing it. There are a lot of things where understanding Edebug specs gets complicated. Anything to make things clearer is good. Michael. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jan 29 10:56:17 2022 Received: (at 28747) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Jan 2022 15:56:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34529 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nDq5J-0000vt-MK for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 10:56:17 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:54228) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nDq5H-0000vd-Fv for 28747@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 10:56:15 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=RRyOgjFqDuSEZ/sTpEKlplFE/UedL3CvB73xWaUNNHA=; b=VD0ZQvw8v2auIV5ohOlzsN10qw 9h5PEyaIxq9jlScoUW0AhiS4fh01lH3ddI/bvGC9JFPdqhdYjJX4mk9WMROHuumyeHvwVLhv/X6IB aQ1hz00RtQemsy3DIACkVlfcoiLlymimMgwQkbrBhPukDwLQWznTUD0DWDaZWMXUnaFI=; Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=giant) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nDq57-0004GM-Pg; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 16:56:08 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Gemini Lasswell Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs References: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> <87sgnto1bf.fsf@gnus.org> X-Now-Playing: The Durutti Column's _Circuses and Bread_: "Dance I" Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 16:56:03 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87sgnto1bf.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:45:40 +0200") Message-ID: <87o83u8rjg.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (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: >> Here's a little example of what an Edebug spec would look like with >> &repeat in place of &rest: >> >> (defmacro msgmac (&rest args) >> (declare (debug ("start" [&repeat "middle"] "end"))) >> `(me [...] 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: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28747 Cc: 28747@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier 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 (---) Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: >> Here's a little example of what an Edebug spec would look like with >> &repeat in place of &rest: >> >> (defmacro msgmac (&rest args) >> (declare (debug ("start" [&repeat "middle"] "end"))) >> `(message "%s" ',args)) >> >> (defun use-msgmac () >> (msgmac start end) >> (msgmac start middle end) >> (msgmac start middle middle end)) >> >> Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of adding &repeat as a synonym >> for &rest in Edebug specs, with the goal of moving &rest towards >> obsolescence eventually? > > I agree that this would be a lot clearer and probably less error-prone > than &rest. > > Does anybody have an opinion here? Stefan added to the CCs; perhaps he has an opinion. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jan 29 18:26:10 2022 Received: (at 28747) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Jan 2022 23:26:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35153 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nDx6g-00023s-2N for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 18:26:10 -0500 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:36154) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nDx6a-00023E-Fm for 28747@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 18:26:08 -0500 Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 62DEC8028B; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 18:25:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DAD5380342; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 18:25:56 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1643498756; bh=bSmAEPJmsQWfsifJsCL4+xxNB0Cr6edzUoEddlYEr6I=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=BsydwU/c4v3r3Tcyo52Zx7NbsfXFkC//RT+4/cYoSmubIREjeiUKCWMn/cqBGEwVa aHb/4qYr0WySeOGCedKK+FJfZn+qHkq8nlzh8i7nz2S7EkQCSuOrS/3asUlWP4ox9i RBJEiA+05kS2vemcJusDGuLU57yDKZMXkQav29J6aeDXIfgRMTIcRdWHKta2I5fX1K 4o7JtvWbl5DopwuchtFzA8736TdSR8HrubIkqUPyyg3899Mm1+lrqmz/9UVdhFMXSV N6f14v6oWi3dWp65sfwNX5O1kPxlltkhf0uiu6n9XGmj7duXMS76cyghPAiSm2HGJ+ IQ2OC1gdLR3Kg== Received: from ceviche (76-10-138-212.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.138.212]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 960EB1208E1; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 18:25:56 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: Gemini Lasswell Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs Message-ID: References: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 18:25:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> (Gemini Lasswell's message of "Sun, 08 Oct 2017 08:02:56 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL -0.025 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28747 Cc: 28747@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: -3.3 (---) > The symbol &rest in an Edebug spec has a different meaning than it has > in an argument list. Definitely, yes. Note that `&optional` is different "in the same way". > In particular, "&rest body" in an Edebug spec is > erroneous usage because it is asking Edebug to match something that > can match nothing (body) as many times as it can, which makes an > infinite loop. Only idiots would get caught making such rookie mistakes. > Here are the macros I've found that have this incorrect usage of &rest > in their Edebug specs: > > crm--completion-command > easy-mmode-define-navigation > inline--letlisteval > inline--leteval > ses--letref See: only idiots. > Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of adding &repeat as a synonym > for &rest in Edebug specs, with the goal of moving &rest towards > obsolescence eventually? I like the idea. Only problem I can see is that it doesn't solve the problem for `&optional`. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 30 21:21:53 2022 Received: (at 28747) by debbugs.gnu.org; 31 Jan 2022 02:21:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38063 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nEMKG-0005CW-PH for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:21:52 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:41176) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nEMKB-0005CB-QY for 28747@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:21:51 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=bnxdfBOeiUf4Dd8JNOwtm/H5yjdLwdJcQ3wOkBGjBOQ=; b=sXeR5vNZLEhy2NzKKCv2t/Roer 4D9hQouyb33WhiqlZiGVR7HEuGKf3j7IfDljXAnSAniQPRVymQX1DLnzQFmM2OW75NVmv/We1qAMR BtKDhkFcHmS/dn2a0Za3XgwXKLPYnAm1lCZvWcW27LBs4cNrJDppnrcruDb8KzixhlUk=; Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=giant) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nEMK1-0004wJ-AT; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 03:21:40 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Gemini Lasswell Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs References: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAABGdBTUEAALGPC/xhBQAAACBj SFJNAAB6JgAAgIQAAPoAAACA6AAAdTAAAOpgAAA6mAAAF3CculE8AAAAElBMVEWdhHlmREm2s60c DxKiXE3////4ZjCcAAAAAWJLR0QF+G/pxwAAAAd0SU1FB+YBHwISO/Oocd8AAAG4SURBVDjLdZSL jeQgDIZNlALw4gJYNAUsyhUAGfdf0/02hE1ON5bm5Q8/+TNETDmk4+BYHkbMfAz7+Qek47L4BMev fd1BuoH6CRx3cPcf2ycQPwGhD4CZtv+ByhzJ7AEwKbYgeDmjdbap9gFG3DyuSrSrdPez6ARVDKgB QyJtAgS48YxguQEEdNGVaYGGEvD02RMRd5SwLCgj3lAZQPUNYI16u5ad9rYzaVcD3fw7AGAM7BGS UOJ9akMRxMVZQxsyK8ZuShahV3GxqdATjjiwddgHdRtLdMsOUmXXUz2I/zRW0Vaytl59n7blRGjJ OsVxgHFZbgBc56rae7kN8ALKYdSI31bcvrkbY5TAJWcmAy8sQhyQQj255K1sBssENkzMBc6ybbbH 8rJrsES9xe+lKlMKijpAxNh4GBFXCEAoj4iyax2A7mq3N03iwy8AnZLYl14nmMqFgrFR/MjcLRNt XjwP/b6SoSAthKWQQTLzVwk18KV1s408EeOeMi+hQ0GF7El9MSPZ0rk3R72e5pQyr8HSeLvsj2Tn mM7wqD3+ETInPfNVwK0ppHGW3C//6hZdhbrZGtrd/xfn35E/In5CFwAAACV0RVh0ZGF0ZTpjcmVh dGUAMjAyMi0wMS0zMVQwMjoxODo1OSswMDowMGehhPcAAAAldEVYdGRhdGU6bW9kaWZ5ADIwMjIt MDEtMzFUMDI6MTg6NTkrMDA6MDAW/DxLAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC X-Now-Playing: Phranc's _Positively Phranc_: "Why?" Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 03:21:34 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier via's message of "Sat, 29 Jan 2022 18:25:55 -0500") Message-ID: <87ee4o4pch.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (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: Stefan Monnier via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" writes: >> Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of adding &repeat as a synonym >> for &rest in Edebug specs, with the goal of moving &rest towards >> obsolescence eventually? > > I like the idea. Only proble [...] 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: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28747 Cc: 28747@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier 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 (---) Stefan Monnier via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" writes: >> Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of adding &repeat as a synonym >> for &rest in Edebug specs, with the goal of moving &rest towards >> obsolescence eventually? > > I like the idea. Only problem I can see is that it doesn't > solve the problem for `&optional`. I guess it could also lead to problems in third-party packages that use the edebug specs themselves -- they expect symbols tagged up with &rest and get &repeat instead, breaking their code. I'm not sure how serious a problem that is, though. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 30 21:30:47 2022 Received: (at 28747) by debbugs.gnu.org; 31 Jan 2022 02:30:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38068 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nEMSt-0005RM-MD for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:30:47 -0500 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:39455) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nEMSr-0005R6-CR for 28747@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:30:46 -0500 Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1AEAA80658; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:30:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B8F888015E; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:30:37 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1643596237; bh=ytmNb45xLqdJTR7YHIUblzMJrHC9Vfrovmcy4m3GZbU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=cZMCtnaBmEfM2ybde9NTNPkL4RfDM1/6e05jwlbWF4T6Kolm0O29q33EWDK7j2do9 C4DJvxkviudL2MmIQIT3tBAiS9t3RLFOzAmmAKk+2NyHupOuL6CTvjfq2A+jNBUYU3 Johz8SyPFLNKXcqjzi2Fns89lmfoyRI967ncXmtFMf+5AmTki3evAFI2HqjT0zFpSr +Fuu/yu2/Q7SKjD8JffevRNBdEkR5Z6ApM6FztEvzxDbt3vdcweE2yV7Y3iFFHwCD7 rQvVxZyQ8CLTX5DINrCoXt6vG4EHr8VDIraytWZkg9xBFlo1EHLto2+AD4AvDAN3GR xW+Cy6++S8FPg== Received: from pastel (76-10-138-212.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.138.212]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EC961201D8; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:30:37 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs Message-ID: References: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> <87ee4o4pch.fsf@gnus.org> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:30:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87ee4o4pch.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Mon, 31 Jan 2022 03:21:34 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL -0.029 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28747 Cc: Gemini Lasswell , 28747@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: -3.3 (---) > I guess it could also lead to problems in third-party packages that use > the edebug specs themselves -- they expect symbols tagged up with &rest > and get &repeat instead, breaking their code. > I'm not sure how serious a problem that is, though. I'm not too worried about that. [ And if we're wrong, it'd let us learn about uses of edebug specs of which we're not aware. ] Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 30 21:35:20 2022 Received: (at 28747) by debbugs.gnu.org; 31 Jan 2022 02:35:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38078 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nEMXI-0005Yf-E2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:35:20 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:41312) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nEMXG-0005YO-MR for 28747@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:35:19 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=oTM3aWWUCnRZ40olk0E0o+iZAbeU/3qmh6XVVzs1g3w=; b=YgI6Dmf6msLg9Yf+7iYFASNEhj x60KW0vraDiRk5uNKW29yBVFKJhSBjDZLdNImK8Im//T2Cmi9ikAiAnZ2cM+4WsaFzNvQU/VTEdiv AFGd2x+Bd3zFmLjE3oHimBByfvhAo0DjIKBxT0s1NHjJOJKUT1ZBSJi7egazl+l4CKjs=; Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=giant) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nEMX6-00051b-QY; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 03:35:11 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs References: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> <87ee4o4pch.fsf@gnus.org> Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAABGdBTUEAALGPC/xhBQAAACBj SFJNAAB6JgAAgIQAAPoAAACA6AAAdTAAAOpgAAA6mAAAF3CculE8AAAAElBMVEUMBAYuFR1SKC5l QUq3dVX////MZLzwAAAAAWJLR0QF+G/pxwAAAAd0SU1FB+YBHwIhMn4frEsAAAGqSURBVDjLhZTb sQMhCIYlaUBNAxG3gCgWkAT6r+mAurfMzhyeEj65/eI6NwxCiKGbd8HtBmE3HzYCyR1AiI80wY25 lZCJEg5QnzPiK0sjEWHuINcyAfOySOMm2UDO9bWCx7IQKeDUARU/QHksLX5ZmlgRLVZnRIk5I7XG hIhJwZrKEqgLGSco23wRd1Pw3OY++JEm8A5y/Yl4raDVE6i9W5UsRDGS6wSjNoBXFbifnF0VB13D ok0tSghX4AegFDDLrJB08jAUyaZ5bbKBajelMdGikeTbgWqFE0CNVjr3zlLwUTOBA+9ixmqj92Q7 cA+u1AE2jprJRei1AYVJUtdECurp0asqmPW2P13z8NxXx2lOWwOy2Z/6z7sxNgR3k2FauWs6VlFz 3toAHwPgJgDtA2gQu2G3As2l4o4YbjNk3+mZTL56M7qpmx9Xtx3IUraIGfDWI3oxh1nutce8wngT pyoG+tJ0XXf/3YAfLyoeYwywuzBgbeoKOGr8uQS1Lu9LgJTTJYiUDl0eFAsYX5cA2lhxD3MNddvm D3/ObR+XH9d/Nj88pyT6WP8AkoJf0MdQ92EAAAAldEVYdGRhdGU6Y3JlYXRlADIwMjItMDEtMzFU MDI6MzM6NTArMDA6MDBStYMSAAAAJXRFWHRkYXRlOm1vZGlmeQAyMDIyLTAxLTMxVDAyOjMzOjUw KzAwOjAwI+g7rgAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== X-Now-Playing: Phranc's _I'm Not Romantic_: "I Enjoy Being A Girl" Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 03:35:02 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:30:35 -0500") Message-ID: <875yq04oq1.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (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: Stefan Monnier writes: > I'm not too worried about that. > [ And if we're wrong, it'd let us learn about uses of edebug specs of > which we're not aware. ] It's hard to grep for, but there's a usage in pp.el, at least, so it's used outside of the edebug machinery. 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: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28747 Cc: Gemini Lasswell , 28747@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: -3.3 (---) Stefan Monnier writes: > I'm not too worried about that. > [ And if we're wrong, it'd let us learn about uses of edebug specs of > which we're not aware. ] It's hard to grep for, but there's a usage in pp.el, at least, so it's used outside of the edebug machinery. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 30 21:44:46 2022 Received: (at 28747) by debbugs.gnu.org; 31 Jan 2022 02:44:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38083 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nEMgQ-0005mj-Aw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:44:46 -0500 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:42580) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nEMgP-0005mU-3j for 28747@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:44:45 -0500 Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 871458015E; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:44:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F3E2080263; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:44:33 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1643597074; bh=yIcvCSEqTwgRU76Cy9kdZBny323C6Ngt8MP1Um5lztg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=D2rRZyNKmnMjRhvdua1P3diCxcfvoFVvfFQ5svNPZ/KKWYtNDtyKzWOYqs3XUSizq Wgl0C/O7LdjkTv+dgvc+rw0V6NNcGXGVh2RZhp+eEDLCXCcyhZ2baWNuTz+DTnLjnS DW/lcbx9uZyt3LNYnXdhdEsgA20ekT+bJuaUHi2qmgU9+zeaG55jxRxI3TDN+jdKTu mIUStHNM4wexoIMwhRO/PQlh+VumIUQi4OdmiFjYW47qABsZ0TUttucfjewSilIKiZ NAeZ/u/vdUMe5TuYmO7vYEnTGwyEXSJaZ9KVUDTJnSLezjhugxLthPJ6qdAMoGbs9x CMn4Rcn/nzxSA== Received: from pastel (76-10-138-212.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.138.212]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BDC341206B6; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:44:33 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs Message-ID: References: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> <87ee4o4pch.fsf@gnus.org> <875yq04oq1.fsf@gnus.org> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:44:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <875yq04oq1.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Mon, 31 Jan 2022 03:35:02 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL -0.029 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28747 Cc: Gemini Lasswell , 28747@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: -3.3 (---) Lars Ingebrigtsen [2022-01-31 03:35:02] wrote: > Stefan Monnier writes: >> I'm not too worried about that. >> [ And if we're wrong, it'd let us learn about uses of edebug specs of >> which we're not aware. ] > It's hard to grep for, but there's a usage in pp.el, at least, so it's > used outside of the edebug machinery. Yes, but it hardly qualifies for "of which we're not aware" ;-) Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 30 22:01:08 2022 Received: (at 28747) by debbugs.gnu.org; 31 Jan 2022 03:01:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38088 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nEMwF-0006Fh-O7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 22:01:07 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:41418) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nEMwA-0006F0-K0 for 28747@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 22:01:06 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=MFlf2Tbgfs2Zvae+wMirb5qEhLqe5vdHl/D0o/iKshk=; b=EBkk0VuCpWIfPY/2UfJtr4ZkWJ vKcFTMc/iXLs2lQMSuw/yJJM372RGk3KuBH2sumdr/yE/YKT9zTGtYEXHFWd9WFcgZsxA1EbwfTiw rTtL5/OWdh3m9kKN0MxUqQZcM6RNAx03wlnhfez7P+lmEHltmR3NatFjf1vx/kRksLIg=; Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=giant) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nEMw0-0005Kk-9m; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 04:00:55 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs References: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> <87ee4o4pch.fsf@gnus.org> <875yq04oq1.fsf@gnus.org> Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAABGdBTUEAALGPC/xhBQAAACBj SFJNAAB6JgAAgIQAAPoAAACA6AAAdTAAAOpgAAA6mAAAF3CculE8AAAAG1BMVEWp5vyl1+/Nx7rl 49eGg3kSERBeX1uvq6H///+w8P1ZAAAAAWJLR0QIht6VegAAAAd0SU1FB+YBHwI3HL5RFFMAAAGh SURBVDjLbdTNbtswDABgtxmw69IVzZ00qrsY1HfHll9gUu+pLN8VY3r9Uf6rZY1BLvlAUqQVF0Xx AhxIRBKg1GsUO6AIxqQQWFAy2E71TrkVULk61ir1p7FutO2WobW1OJcyxpktA3qt3eBF1ly0TuvP EIRbYwVlez2E4ItdTKWUHZ3Y4Ol8Xk/VWjWIXcbTDES9c3cQR+ChW6M8tzr0YPjQNraCBOKaqL3F hARO8fdKOYRyyOGqDUneYgbEjSSl8Ju2kD7PmKK6ZyCn7/UAcRBMIU5+ggXgAC/CT1eBrXrs4RJm kB4qXGFeu4cJgrIJnORyrULjKOnBF2oC0TQJXHAeg+KtO4CUy7Go2MUFsMR5jSm8dWBvXA0zsOrP sCQk8FMpbZAgy3hu6tDJ/2Q8uwbj08tL9UbZsqEMfmjbm3eDOQzCQuV9Bq8ob9was8lfkeKH4oF5 yl/fA3Id8gjz8NPh5sfy5q811AwoBZwv5xhLxvVBNQnKl/i3Cx2MOQSGwY/fxbfmHw/5Ne1KpuDf 6+pO4/T6ScDxW8XyRZD7v9o/ywKdkBdDmRgAAAAldEVYdGRhdGU6Y3JlYXRlADIwMjItMDEtMzFU MDI6NTU6MjgrMDA6MDCONH5oAAAAJXRFWHRkYXRlOm1vZGlmeQAyMDIyLTAxLTMxVDAyOjU1OjI4 KzAwOjAw/2nG1AAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== X-Now-Playing: Phranc's _Milkman_: "Yer the One" Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 04:00:50 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:44:32 -0500") Message-ID: <87v8y038yl.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (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: Stefan Monnier writes: >> It's hard to grep for, but there's a usage in pp.el, at least, so it's >> used outside of the edebug machinery. > > Yes, but it hardly qualifies for "of which we're not aware" ;-) 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: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28747 Cc: Gemini Lasswell , 28747@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: -3.3 (---) Stefan Monnier writes: >> It's hard to grep for, but there's a usage in pp.el, at least, so it's >> used outside of the edebug machinery. > > Yes, but it hardly qualifies for "of which we're not aware" ;-) No, but if one weirdo's made use of the specs, then there's probably more out there. Your point about &optional also makes me lean towards not doing anything here -- I mean, "&optional body" and "&rest body" are both likely in edebug specs, and the confusion here more stems from `body' in itself being nullable, I think? So I dunno whether renaming &rest to &repeat is going to help people that write debug specs in practice much. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 01 00:04:10 2022 Received: (at 28747) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Feb 2022 05:04:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41480 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nElKo-0004hC-OX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2022 00:04:10 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:46112) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nElKm-0004gd-30 for 28747@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2022 00:04:04 -0500 Received: from [2001:470:142:3::e] (port=35070 helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nElKg-0003Oq-2I; Tue, 01 Feb 2022 00:03:58 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=Date:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: mime-version; bh=Kp9abtHuUZ1z5ltdcCJIlcpwVoB0GMvm6ls2hE3xSV4=; b=Cc/KQjEEe4sv AgdKz/3idc/NbpjXnYn5nY9oGuOrQGA1WsE8fizZPRZYrHh3j0v9r+I/bWvQ78yTTXDs/3pPyHLW+ Ui0Wlb/F4yQR+8SAZFW7NkTkb/yTwFaqCvgpD0CYr2OQCaKYnC3VXbMf4nvQgZON5XVVMPG4u/lNP vwGP3HWeFUVqpcsb309FgCbSt3wsrT5BS+WmY1MV6DKi2KfQU7W7wHdj18eUJuUW15x3hm0qKYvT2 yh+CBbuJlahTm9bSNzYh71pMH5hD09LsAQ4wnsBUIn4Z0IQ5Ru/MAESrS+8q6M3UVb+R1YEa7twNS c4c2wJgVHP4PPCdTfs/ckQ==; Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nElKf-0000eu-5x; Tue, 01 Feb 2022 00:03:57 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 From: Richard Stallman To: Lars Ingebrigtsen In-Reply-To: <87o83u8rjg.fsf@gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Sat, 29 Jan 2022 16:56:03 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs References: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> <87sgnto1bf.fsf@gnus.org> <87o83u8rjg.fsf@gnus.org> Message-Id: Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 00:03:57 -0500 X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28747 Cc: gazally@runbox.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 28747@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: , Reply-To: rms@gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > Resent-From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org > Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 16:56:03 +0100 > Message-ID: <87o83u8rjg.fsf@gnus.org> > >> Here's a little example of what an Edebug spec would look like with > >> &repeat in place of &rest: > >> > >> (defmacro msgmac (&rest args) > >> (declare (debug ("start" [&repeat "middle"] "end"))) > >> `(message "%s" ',args)) > >> > >> (defun use-msgmac () > >> (msgmac start end) > >> (msgmac start middle end) > >> (msgmac start middle middle end)) > >> > >> Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of adding &repeat as a synonym > >> for &rest in Edebug specs, with the goal of moving &rest towards > >> obsolescence eventually? ... > Stefan added to the CCs; perhaps he has an opinion. It looks like this makes usage more complex, and the change would be incompatible. That is two reasons not to make the change. Does it offer any benefit? The message I am replying to is clearly not the start of the thread, but I can't find the earlier ones. I searched my inboxes back to Oct 11. It looks like somehow I did not receive them. -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun May 01 04:49:11 2022 Received: (at 28747) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 May 2022 08:49:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59481 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nl5GR-0000Bc-Ge for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2022 04:49:11 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:56842) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nl5GQ-0000BO-Ly for 28747@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2022 04:49:11 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=u1EnrHjrynX5HfYESkTSYnmwXdk0cLnHYOWvcq4J7ZY=; b=GEmd/T3ZeRo7DybyQheGZCwQ69 o/xt/lxKpfyj28P1cMzYngev2SFvNWnMC/R8tW86WPWCHH9hyOgkRG07swqR8vpXeEomCAZ7+sb28 VxbTfSj3XeiQqzie0ThmyffakQDmqwrHvjIAe04G9hsOe/uqd3lw1SWX/SzY6O6yGNoI=; Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nl5GH-0002BC-6d; Sun, 01 May 2022 10:49:03 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs References: <87o9phznq7.fsf@runbox.com> <87ee4o4pch.fsf@gnus.org> <875yq04oq1.fsf@gnus.org> <87v8y038yl.fsf@gnus.org> X-Now-Playing: David Byrne and Brian Eno's _My Life In The Bush Of Ghosts_: "Mountains of Needles" Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 10:49:00 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87v8y038yl.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Mon, 31 Jan 2022 04:00:50 +0100") Message-ID: <874k29tz7n.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (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: > Your point about &optional also makes me lean towards not doing anything > here -- I mean, "&optional body" and "&rest body" are both likely in > edebug specs, and the confusion here more stems from [...] 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: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28747 Cc: Gemini Lasswell , 28747@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: -3.3 (---) Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > Your point about &optional also makes me lean towards not doing anything > here -- I mean, "&optional body" and "&rest body" are both likely in > edebug specs, and the confusion here more stems from `body' in itself > being nullable, I think? > > So I dunno whether renaming &rest to &repeat is going to help people > that write debug specs in practice much. I think the conclusion here is that we should probably let sleeping dogs doze, so I'm closing this bug report. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun May 01 04:49:14 2022 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 May 2022 08:49:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59484 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nl5GU-0000Bu-Ng for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2022 04:49:14 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:56858) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nl5GT-0000BS-8q for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2022 04:49:13 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Subject:From:To:Message-Id:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=JjIJYlX3N9GOFNDClWnSx7NEbYzr0ogMrBnYCZXOQ8U=; b=FNR1vxBkfYJ/sUUjdZfaO0Zdau fEb0BbPvbFf2LUOWTnknT7+o9AuEwpKDdXOvlKgqg0NSYGDcFOFNQ4hhvmWBvO9MfeksafENyEQcE 4XczcW/KXK5fgeQaz07yvacpbZ+EWhu3i7ojDveW/L2cMA3UuqSiaO3xIvH7Y6Wv5sQE=; Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nl5GL-0002BO-Lk for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2022 10:49:07 +0200 Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 10:49:05 +0200 Message-Id: <8735httz7i.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #28747 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 28747 wontfix close 28747 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: -2.3 (--) 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: -3.3 (---) tags 28747 wontfix close 28747 quit From unknown Sat Jun 14 19:46:12 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Sun, 29 May 2022 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