GNU bug report logs - #58790
Eglot URI parsing bug when using clojure-lsp server

Previous Next

Full log

Message #89 received at 58790 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>, Michael Albinus
 <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
Cc: 58790 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, felician.nemeth <at> gmail.com, stefankangas <at> gmail.com,
 danny <at> dfreeman.email, dgutov <at> yandex.ru
Subject: Re: bug#58790: Eglot URI parsing bug when using clojure-lsp server
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022 09:29:11 +0200

> From: João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,  58790 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
>   felician.nemeth <at> gmail.com,  stefankangas <at> gmail.com,  dgutov <at> yandex.ru
> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 22:48:20 +0000
> 
> Danny Freeman <danny <at> dfreeman.email> writes:
> 
> > In reviewing the comments over and over I've made a modification to
> > the second patch involving the warning message. Instead of using an
> > arbitrary symbol I realized that the function `find-file-name-handler'
> > works when a nil value for the second argument (operation).
> 
> I've now pushed the first patch, but I held off the second patch.
> 
> I don't see this OPERATION=nil option documented in the docstring of
> find-file-name-handler, so I'm not sure we should rely on it.
> 
> I think we should provide OPERATION here, because what we want to check
> is if we, Emacs, can actually visit the file designated by the URI.  So
> I think passing something like 'access-file' as the OPERATION argument
> makes more sense.  But Eli probably has more knowledge here.  Maybe
> passing nil is indeed correct.

I think you are right, but Michael (CC'ed) will know for sure.

Previous Next

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