Subject: bug#43489: [PATCH] Don't signal scan-error when moving by sexp interactively

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:40:01 +0200

Mattias Engdegård <[email-masked]> writes:

> But my personal flaws should not impede progress. How about I push
> what I've got (latest patch attached for reference) since we seem to
> agree that it's an improvement over what's in master, and if then you
> or anyone else want to further adjust the messages then I have no
> objections.

Sure.  The only thing is this:

> -(defun backward-sexp (&optional arg)
> +obstacle.  If NOERROR is non-nil, as it is interactively,
> +do not signal an error."
> +  (interactive "^p\nd")
> +  (if noerror
> +      (condition-case _
> +          (forward-sexp arg nil)
> +        (scan-error (user-error (if (> arg 0)
> +                                    "No next sexp"
> +                                  "No previous sexp"))))

The parameter is NOERROR, but now it does signal an error.  :-)

So perhaps the parameter should be USER-ERROR/TERSE-ERROR or something
and the doc strings adjusted?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no