From unknown Tue Aug 19 09:35:17 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#29048 <29048@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#29048 <29048@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: 26.0.90; [PATCH] Improve documentation on Edebug and macros Reply-To: bug#29048 <29048@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 16:35:17 +0000 retitle 29048 26.0.90; [PATCH] Improve documentation on Edebug and macros reassign 29048 emacs submitter 29048 Gemini Lasswell severity 29048 wishlist tag 29048 patch thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Oct 28 21:02:19 2017 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Oct 2017 01:02:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39583 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e8bzW-0004KW-OC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 21:02:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58944) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e8bzU-0004KJ-FE for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 21:02:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e8bzO-0003B9-0z for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 21:02:11 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:54997) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e8bzN-0003Az-TT for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 21:02:09 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49908) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e8bzM-0007QQ-IY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 21:02:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e8bzI-00038k-KF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 21:02:08 -0400 Received: from aibo.runbox.com ([91.220.196.211]:55584) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e8bzI-00036u-7X for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 21:02:04 -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=YPLnXfPA4WiTIegqXDpPIFOezA7E8nr2eOsLA9xFtSo=; b=aPd4YyXps5SsySxK8Mmff5Oe3 puMLBwYVxW8zXV9aScFWzgttTbi2ZtWqsMj800IZRz6+Ai9+O9LbKRxcZOZ5/u2yp19x5YVkZZJRK kYO6OdYHubNYqSFDd2klQTs/WnyDjcOcaumArq0iR+BjhqKsTfaSGO8qxD9H9nNNUcUO/P6QUzHtp wyVvKkvBiXzP/eWTw5dUUalSY2w9rdw92DM0yHbHbbQcxtnDpdfXQokNsjDW9CR17cbF3W/60ID1C DtLeCjh0iCLTbDOTQE7tAA0oxMFwwCJggAmJPBXSnpmYbOFRL3Srh/ZEfFsrsLSuJkRH/evCN6/i3 w+mwpioLQ==; Received: from [10.9.9.211] (helo=mailfront11.runbox.com) by mailtransmit03.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e8bzA-0007GP-Ro for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 02:01:56 +0100 Received: from c-24-22-244-161.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([24.22.244.161] helo=chinook) by mailfront11.runbox.com with esmtpsa (uid:179284 ) (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) id 1e8byz-0004DG-Ne for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 02:01:46 +0100 From: Gemini Lasswell To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 26.0.90; [PATCH] Improve documentation on Edebug and macros Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 18:01:43 -0700 Message-ID: <87mv4abwco.fsf@runbox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" 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: -3.6 (---) 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: -3.6 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Here are a few suggestions to try to make that dense section of the manual on Edebug and macros a little clearer. I'd like to remove mention of eval-when-compile from the explanation of how to make sure macro specifications are available, because it's not the only way to get yourself in that situation. If you navigate to a function in a file that's not yet loaded which uses a macro in a different file required by the first file and also not yet loaded, and C-u C-M-x, Edebug will complain due to the lack of macro spec regardless of whether the never-executed require in the first file was wrapped with eval-when-compile. --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline; filename=0001-Improve-documentation-of-Edebug-and-macros.patch >From 648f33d68218ac89d941eb78aa6f6d2934e6f97e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Gemini Lasswell Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 13:47:15 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Improve documentation of Edebug and macros * doc/lispref/edebug.texi (Instrumenting Macro Calls): Refer to `require' instead of `eval-when-compile' in discussion of loading macro specifications before instrumenting. (Specification List): Clarify what "defining form" means to Edebug and when `def-form' or `def-body' should be used instead of `form' or `body'. --- doc/lispref/edebug.texi | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/lispref/edebug.texi b/doc/lispref/edebug.texi index cebf0a3af3..e1c1e26bc5 100644 --- a/doc/lispref/edebug.texi +++ b/doc/lispref/edebug.texi @@ -1144,9 +1144,10 @@ Instrumenting Macro Calls @c automatically load the entire source file containing the function @c being instrumented. That would avoid this. Take care to ensure that the specifications are known to Edebug when -you instrument code. If you are instrumenting a function from a file -that uses @code{eval-when-compile} to require another file containing -macro definitions, you may need to explicitly load that file. +you instrument code. If you are instrumenting a function which uses a +macro defined in another file, you may first need to either evaluate +the @code{require} forms in the file containing your function, or +explicitly load the file containing the macro. You can also define an edebug specification for a macro separately from the macro definition with @code{def-edebug-spec}. Adding @@ -1231,13 +1232,17 @@ Specification List @c an "expression" is not necessarily intended for evaluation. @item form -A single evaluated expression, which is instrumented. +A single evaluated expression, which is instrumented. If your macro +wraps the expression with @code{lambda} before it is evaluated, use +@code{def-form} instead. See @code{def-form} below. @item place A generalized variable. @xref{Generalized Variables}. @item body -Short for @code{&rest form}. See @code{&rest} below. +Short for @code{&rest form}. See @code{&rest} below. If your macro +wraps its body of code with @code{lambda} before it is evaluated, use +@code{def-body} instead. See @code{def-body} below. @item function-form A function form: either a quoted function symbol, a quoted lambda @@ -1292,11 +1297,16 @@ Specification List @item &define @c @kindex &define @r{(Edebug)} -Indicates that the specification is for a defining form. The defining -form itself is not instrumented (that is, Edebug does not stop before and -after the defining form), but forms inside it typically will be -instrumented. The @code{&define} keyword should be the first element in -a list specification. + +Indicates that the specification is for a defining form. Edebug's +definition of a defining form is a form containing one or more code +forms which are saved and executed later, after the execution of the +defining form. + +The defining form itself is not instrumented (that is, Edebug does not +stop before and after the defining form), but forms inside it +typically will be instrumented. The @code{&define} keyword should be +the first element in a list specification. @item nil This is successful when there are no more arguments to match at the -- 2.14.2 --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 03 09:41:48 2017 Received: (at 29048) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Nov 2017 13:41:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48895 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eAcEG-0001Ll-A1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 09:41:48 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45734) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eAcED-0001LX-JR for 29048@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 09:41:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eAcE3-0002xu-Ca for 29048@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 09:41:40 -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,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:55842) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eAcE3-0002xb-8J; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 09:41:35 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2062 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1eAcE2-0004Wa-KO; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 09:41:35 -0400 Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 15:41:32 +0200 Message-Id: <83mv43v5rn.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Gemini Lasswell In-reply-to: <87mv4abwco.fsf@runbox.com> (message from Gemini Lasswell on Sat, 28 Oct 2017 18:01:43 -0700) Subject: Re: bug#29048: 26.0.90; [PATCH] Improve documentation on Edebug and macros References: <87mv4abwco.fsf@runbox.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 29048 Cc: 29048@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: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) > From: Gemini Lasswell > Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 18:01:43 -0700 > > Here are a few suggestions to try to make that dense section of the > manual on Edebug and macros a little clearer. Thanks, this is okay for the release branch. > I'd like to remove mention of eval-when-compile from the explanation > of how to make sure macro specifications are available, because it's > not the only way to get yourself in that situation. If you navigate to > a function in a file that's not yet loaded which uses a macro in a > different file required by the first file and also not yet loaded, and > C-u C-M-x, Edebug will complain due to the lack of macro spec > regardless of whether the never-executed require in the first file was > wrapped with eval-when-compile. That's okay, but please mention eval-when-compile as an example of the broader class of situations with instrumenting code wrapped with macros. > * doc/lispref/edebug.texi (Instrumenting Macro Calls): Refer to > `require' instead of `eval-when-compile' in discussion of loading > macro specifications before instrumenting. In log entries and in NEWS, we use quoting 'like this' nowadays, not `like this'. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Nov 09 12:43:22 2017 Received: (at 29048) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Nov 2017 17:43:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60693 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eCqrK-00009g-2Y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Nov 2017 12:43:22 -0500 Received: from aibo.runbox.com ([91.220.196.211]:38250) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eCqrH-00009X-Th for 29048@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Nov 2017 12:43:20 -0500 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:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From; bh=mK4tSPhFb1xZDiRv5yEfWxg6WpqGxdylUT0+gd9HOxg=; b=kcVEEH92Pq+Iiov7YtQrZ4vuFb clXp7DUgwcDS8bd18ouIwqSxjdeqU3r+FfCQw6syKECBc204NgckRIuu6ms1kz1qoJSAxYZYbakqm XYtDlducrs+dMJUjdNFBm5AWSIiFlk6brEP0gAKMkWo5TH+reFs82q4NeSjR8R9Ev43Jsgqi73Lqx Ei7Ys/w0RDmEwF/lhmFzK9NcsXed3gVUOBmMGcl4VlbQIyhK8l2UIGS4sr+loKL5Js1/NZHRbJMPO UkTpGH0uKz98gL6NHGbJ5mSk4XWWSqMBnnkuz7vd4EDScqfPy6raLVv8NvtY9J4b5Rw1BqodbkQXH zKFAYBzw==; Received: from [10.9.9.210] (helo=mailfront10.runbox.com) by mailtransmit03.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eCqrF-0002ar-Iy; Thu, 09 Nov 2017 18:43:17 +0100 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 1eCqr1-0007QD-Sn; Thu, 09 Nov 2017 18:43:04 +0100 From: Gemini Lasswell To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#29048: 26.0.90; [PATCH] Improve documentation on Edebug and macros References: <87mv4abwco.fsf@runbox.com> <83mv43v5rn.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 09:43:01 -0800 In-Reply-To: <83mv43v5rn.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 03 Nov 2017 15:41:32 +0200") Message-ID: <87r2t71h7e.fsf@runbox.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 29048 Cc: Gemini Lasswell , 29048@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 (/) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Eli Zaretskii writes: > That's okay, but please mention eval-when-compile as an example of the > broader class of situations with instrumenting code wrapped with > macros. OK, here's a revised version. --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline; filename=0001-Improve-documentation-of-Edebug-and-macros.patch >From 4213f586b8207bc0529c664ada005bfc61acfa08 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Gemini Lasswell Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 13:47:15 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Improve documentation of Edebug and macros * doc/lispref/edebug.texi (Instrumenting Macro Calls): Improve discussion of when it might be necessary to find and evaluate macro specifications before instrumenting. (Specification List): Clarify what "defining form" means to Edebug and when 'def-form' or 'def-body' should be used instead of 'form' or 'body'. --- doc/lispref/edebug.texi | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/lispref/edebug.texi b/doc/lispref/edebug.texi index cebf0a3af3..62fd9f38cb 100644 --- a/doc/lispref/edebug.texi +++ b/doc/lispref/edebug.texi @@ -1144,9 +1144,12 @@ Instrumenting Macro Calls @c automatically load the entire source file containing the function @c being instrumented. That would avoid this. Take care to ensure that the specifications are known to Edebug when -you instrument code. If you are instrumenting a function from a file -that uses @code{eval-when-compile} to require another file containing -macro definitions, you may need to explicitly load that file. +you instrument code. If you are instrumenting a function which uses a +macro defined in another file, you may first need to either evaluate +the @code{require} forms in the file containing your function, or +explicitly load the file containing the macro. If the definition of a +macro is wrapped by @code{eval-when-compile}, you may need to evaluate +it. You can also define an edebug specification for a macro separately from the macro definition with @code{def-edebug-spec}. Adding @@ -1231,13 +1234,17 @@ Specification List @c an "expression" is not necessarily intended for evaluation. @item form -A single evaluated expression, which is instrumented. +A single evaluated expression, which is instrumented. If your macro +wraps the expression with @code{lambda} before it is evaluated, use +@code{def-form} instead. See @code{def-form} below. @item place A generalized variable. @xref{Generalized Variables}. @item body -Short for @code{&rest form}. See @code{&rest} below. +Short for @code{&rest form}. See @code{&rest} below. If your macro +wraps its body of code with @code{lambda} before it is evaluated, use +@code{def-body} instead. See @code{def-body} below. @item function-form A function form: either a quoted function symbol, a quoted lambda @@ -1292,11 +1299,16 @@ Specification List @item &define @c @kindex &define @r{(Edebug)} -Indicates that the specification is for a defining form. The defining -form itself is not instrumented (that is, Edebug does not stop before and -after the defining form), but forms inside it typically will be -instrumented. The @code{&define} keyword should be the first element in -a list specification. + +Indicates that the specification is for a defining form. Edebug's +definition of a defining form is a form containing one or more code +forms which are saved and executed later, after the execution of the +defining form. + +The defining form itself is not instrumented (that is, Edebug does not +stop before and after the defining form), but forms inside it +typically will be instrumented. The @code{&define} keyword should be +the first element in a list specification. @item nil This is successful when there are no more arguments to match at the -- 2.14.3 --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Nov 09 15:16:10 2017 Received: (at 29048) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Nov 2017 20:16:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60850 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eCtFB-0007gm-Mb for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Nov 2017 15:16:10 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41842) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eCtF7-0007fx-V5 for 29048@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Nov 2017 15:16:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eCtEz-0001Gr-Pl for 29048@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Nov 2017 15:16:00 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:43138) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eCtEz-0001Gl-Lh; Thu, 09 Nov 2017 15:15:57 -0500 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3176 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1eCtEy-0004zQ-CZ; Thu, 09 Nov 2017 15:15:57 -0500 Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 22:15:53 +0200 Message-Id: <83fu9nqkcm.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Gemini Lasswell In-reply-to: <87r2t71h7e.fsf@runbox.com> (message from Gemini Lasswell on Thu, 09 Nov 2017 09:43:01 -0800) Subject: Re: bug#29048: 26.0.90; [PATCH] Improve documentation on Edebug and macros References: <87mv4abwco.fsf@runbox.com> <83mv43v5rn.fsf@gnu.org> <87r2t71h7e.fsf@runbox.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 29048 Cc: gazally@runbox.com, 29048@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: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) > From: Gemini Lasswell > Cc: Gemini Lasswell , 29048@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 09:43:01 -0800 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > That's okay, but please mention eval-when-compile as an example of the > > broader class of situations with instrumenting code wrapped with > > macros. > > OK, here's a revised version. OK, thanks. This is good to go. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Nov 13 18:42:20 2017 Received: (at 29048-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Nov 2017 23:42:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39057 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eEOMt-0005Ga-Qs for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:42:19 -0500 Received: from aibo.runbox.com ([91.220.196.211]:34114) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eEOMr-0005GS-Un for 29048-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:42:18 -0500 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:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From; bh=XnmPWEca+17HNuBh4ZiKVz7Q8rQCzQklL6hA+P5AOas=; b=LdrusI9GNw12/7BZ89sJ6k887I F0KQsirj43Qm4Ywj3cvFF3kUOQHCycqp7KMaxx2Ie82GZq2EqdYX7F5VBHbGR4PaYufMlmwOK1gFe VRkIPXhMxn7PObgwaLj6fXMn87nIleGlXJm4yA4+HyfWpDb4wSbOrERqUEFjUv2TLutcBnv9c3Qb1 5iXjOKbhVsvC64pk2cQA+YHceWoPSu26FNrP7aOg8mWIglfrpWAUWl6FuXhTYl3q658wOhS+ZFLW7 sHrWALTIw60KVYVzLfkKMFbDesOsCi4H5UhmyDPK+GpG0Mavr3ujKF2p4j5ls6fDk4tewBNTys/u3 MuZz1hvQ==; Received: from [10.9.9.211] (helo=mailfront11.runbox.com) by mailtransmit02.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eEOMq-0004NY-C8; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:42:16 +0100 Received: from 207-118-94-15.dyn.centurytel.net ([207.118.94.15] helo=sockeye) by mailfront11.runbox.com with esmtpsa (uid:179284 ) (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) id 1eEOMl-00087a-JT; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:42:12 +0100 From: Gemini Lasswell To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#29048: 26.0.90; [PATCH] Improve documentation on Edebug and macros References: <87mv4abwco.fsf@runbox.com> <83mv43v5rn.fsf@gnu.org> <87r2t71h7e.fsf@runbox.com> <83fu9nqkcm.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:42:08 -0800 In-Reply-To: <83fu9nqkcm.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 09 Nov 2017 22:15:53 +0200") Message-ID: <87o9o5g2zz.fsf@runbox.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 29048-done Cc: 29048-done@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 (/) Eli Zaretskii writes: > OK, thanks. This is good to go. I've pushed this to emacs-26. From unknown Tue Aug 19 09:35:17 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:24:04 +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