GNU bug report logs - #43622
28.0.50; [CLEANUP][PATCH] cperl-mode: Eliminate dead code

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 43622 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 43622 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Harald Jörg <haj <at> posteo.de>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 28.0.50; [CLEANUP][PATCH] cperl-mode: Eliminate dead code
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 02:35:15 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

As recently discussed on the emacs-devel list, I'd like to eradicate
conditional code from cperl-mode where the conditionals evaluate to nil.

This is a rather large part of the cleanup, related to all that stuff
which has changed in the last years with regard to font-lock-mode and
cperl-mode's homegrown fontification based on features which are no
longer available.

I tested Perl code on my repositories (twiki.org code and
https://github.com/act-psgi/Act), written by different authors in
different styles, and could not find any change in fontification.

The conditionals leading to dead code are:

 - (featurep 'choose-color) is nil
 - (featurep 'font-lock-extra) is nil
 - (facep 'font-lock-constant-face) is t and
   (boundp 'font-lock-constant-face) is t
   ...same for other faces provided by font-lock-mode.

Once this dead code is eliminated, the macro cperl-force-face and the
function cperl-init-faces-weak (both undocumented) lose their purpose
and are also deleted.

There should be no user-visible changes, so I have made no entry in
etc/NEWS.
--
Cheers,
haj

[0001-cperl-mode-Delete-conditional-code-where-conditions-.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 43622 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Harald Jörg <haj <at> posteo.de>
Cc: 43622 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#43622: 28.0.50; [CLEANUP][PATCH] cperl-mode: Eliminate dead
 code
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 15:53:14 +0200

Harald Jörg <haj <at> posteo.de> writes:

> As recently discussed on the emacs-devel list, I'd like to eradicate
> conditional code from cperl-mode where the conditionals evaluate to nil.
>
> This is a rather large part of the cleanup, related to all that stuff
> which has changed in the last years with regard to font-lock-mode and
> cperl-mode's homegrown fontification based on features which are no
> longer available.
>
> I tested Perl code on my repositories (twiki.org code and
> https://github.com/act-psgi/Act), written by different authors in
> different styles, and could not find any change in fontification.

Looks good, so I've applied it to Emacs 28 with one change:

In end of data:
progmodes/cperl-mode.el:8525:1: Warning: the function `cperl-init-faces-weak'
    is not known to be defined.

This function was removed, but the call wasn't, so I removed it (and
changed the surrounding code slightly).  If you could check that I
didn't mess up that bit, that'd be nice.

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

Message #15 received at 43622 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Harald Jörg <haj <at> posteo.de>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 43622 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#43622: 28.0.50; [CLEANUP][PATCH] cperl-mode: Eliminate dead
 code
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 16:42:39 +0200

Lars Ingebrigtsen writes:

> Harald Jörg <haj <at> posteo.de> writes:
> 
>> As recently discussed on the emacs-devel list, I'd like to eradicate
>> conditional code from cperl-mode where the conditionals evaluate to nil.
>>
>> [...]
> 
> Looks good, so I've applied it to Emacs 28 with one change:
> 
> In end of data:
> progmodes/cperl-mode.el:8525:1: Warning: the function `cperl-init-faces-weak'
>     is not known to be defined.
> 
> This function was removed, but the call wasn't, so I removed it (and
> changed the surrounding code slightly).  If you could check that I
> didn't mess up that bit, that'd be nice.

Ouch - my bad.  I missed to apply that hunk.  I had a solution with the
same logic, but less elegant (closer to the original).  Many thanks for
spotting this!

-- 
Cheers,
haj

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.