GNU bug report logs - #60467
30.0.50; primitive-undo: Changes to be undone by function different from announced

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Gregory Heytings <gregory <at> heytings.org>
Cc: 60467 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, yantar92 <at> posteo.net
Subject: bug#60467: 30.0.50; primitive-undo: Changes to be undone by function different from announced
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2023 21:49:01 -0500

>>>> I don't even understand what this is supposed to do.
>>> Yet you happily threw it away :-(
>>
>> Because there are no such precautions elsewhere in the code, and the
>> comment above ("In case garbage collection has removed OLD-BUL") does not
>> explain what its purpose is.  A few lines below, old-bul is used without
>> such a precaution.  Of course, if it has a purpose, it's okay to keep it.
>>
>
> I didn't remember the main reason why I removed that (cdr ptr).  The reason
> is not only that the comment above it is wrong, but also that this (cdr ptr)
> condition itself is wrong: it makes that loop stop when the last element of
> the buffer-undo-list is reached.  When buffer-undo-list is initially nil,
> (funcall body) adds a number of entries in buffer-undo-list, and there is no
> reason to exit that loop without processing its last element.

I think for your loop you'd need to check `ptr` instead of (cdr
ptr), indeed.  For the loop currently in `subr.el` I think the (cdr ptr)
is OK because we use the `setcdr` to truncate the list, so that last
cons (whose `cdr` may be nil) will be in the list included in the
(apply ....) entry.


        Stefan

Previous Next

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