GNU bug report logs - #45607
27.1; compiled replace-string breaks repeat-complex-command

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Allen Li <darkfeline <at> felesatra.moe>
Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, 45607 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, juri <at> linkov.net
Subject: bug#45607: 27.1; compiled replace-string breaks repeat-complex-command
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2022 12:23:02 +0300

> From: Allen Li <darkfeline <at> felesatra.moe>
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2022 01:39:01 -0700
> Cc: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 45607 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> 
> [1:text/plain Show]
> 
> 
> [2:text/html Hide Save:noname (944B)]
> 
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 11:58 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>  > Cc: 45607 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Allen Li <darkfeline <at> felesatra.moe>
>  > From: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
>  > Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2022 21:40:58 +0300
>  > 
>  > > Does anybody know of a more general solution to this?
>  > 
>  > This feature is broken by design as I explained in
>  > https://debbugs.gnu.org/45617#17
> 
>  It isn't broken, you just expect it to do some magic that it never
>  meant to do.
> 
>  As in many other cases, the perfect is the enemy of the good here.
> 
> I think it's reasonable to consider the different behavior of evaled vs compiled to be a bug.  Which one is
> correct can be debated, but the fact that they're different is a bug.  Would you disagree? 

That's not what I alluded to, not at all.  I was talking about
repeat-complex-command itself and its alleged "broken" state.

Previous Next

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