GNU bug report logs -
#55257
29.0.50; New command `scratch-buffer' inconsistent with startup
Previous Next
Reported by: David Ponce <da_vid <at> orange.fr>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 08:33:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Found in version 29.0.50
Done: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>, rpluim <at> gmail.com,
> emacs-devel <at> gnu.org, 55257-submitter <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 09:51:54 -0400
>
> > Doesn't get-buffer already "touch" the buffer if it exists?
> > And determining whether the buffer has any stuff in it (if this is the
> > concern here) is just one function call away, and is very fast.
>
> Not sure what it is we'd be gaining.
We will gain that I won't raise my brow and won't want to change that
code each time my eyes fall on it.
> > My bother is that the function you call could signal an error at some
> > point, and that could cause trouble to some of the callers, perhaps.
> > Calling Lisp from C should always assume this could happen, because
> > basically the Lisp function you call is out of your control, and you
> > cannot reliably assume anything about what it does or will do at some
> > future time.
>
> I think this is not needed here, or at least we haven't needed it so
> far: the old C code called `Fset_buffer_major_mode` which itself
> calls `call0 (function);` where `function` is the `initial-major-mode`.
We have recently learned that these calls are not safe enough, so I
think using safe_call's family here will be more future-proof, as more
and more code is moved to Lisp and more and more hooks are bing added.
So I'm still unconvinced, and would like this code to be safer.
This bug report was last modified 3 years and 105 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.