From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 20 11:25:48 2023 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Feb 2023 16:25:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53333 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pU8z6-0004Lh-6E for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:25:48 -0500 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:51166) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pU8z4-0004LZ-QQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:25:47 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pU8z3-0006RP-1z for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:25:45 -0500 Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.24]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pU8yz-00031K-Su for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:25:44 -0500 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 110F43200991 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:25:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:25:37 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=spwhitton.name; h=cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t= 1676910335; x=1676996735; bh=7cWV6LgkVxmNPwtwDS/KZCDof3EPVR4jf9c UM8nWIO4=; b=O6UxWfcmRDByR6sIvACEB3KsnHrfe9tW7/CvdUlRQQIfVbnBA2B 7XWDqLy3XUMdVjVAjA3U2oZm09lDl0IpKWuz3h5ncM23HOjiFTbSkg1Ox0itJEGm lIsB9+IMP5i74k+ruIKIqkHNnVMPOBhhaxkQ8SUZ5k5M6TnxcpuA0JnxE7F5moCP uPygH6tFXk0ZGo9GWWMhd+yn+e/GZuhHuNnvNXTfLmi6jrEnwZVtz5v4TBbyx4OV xylAFMcc8CpvVLj2YKRU7kxgOovksX+4iH5N3JwudyCGhNztMUMrdIsEMWKk1xt0 DlGFBw7mYQzfydIDGdOZgd4cWdNsVUg3DGw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1676910335; x= 1676996735; bh=7cWV6LgkVxmNPwtwDS/KZCDof3EPVR4jf9cUM8nWIO4=; b=Z GC6ptOnLXQkRNmQdpeQL0ymOxRjpQVoLA4re1GH2YzztbWb4LCoRDI9LAS3JLeja 1PD0Tdk6Vg01ShKnB91hZKZe3WJJwA17DZvvY9ZjHNy9JeP8IbIPcmlOVxwbJzhG vkf36xQwBvIR3XFbudxfwnh7qlswKkhuzt5p9q8zvKabrKNBOsPP3ynN+fjNZmIh AT1gkmxDUs10FpZWMyKQ2FXVpshAaC7OnavqIh8J+FqayMBWvZsRY1pCIrN9gZ+v lweJs8px2XcUvqN8Ezd7PpTBfuzQ2zqrhrL6hfiSYoSwZ6CL7109XD9/iElo7AK/ BZtSvOQtE51FqMspvoAGg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudejhedgkedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhvffufffkfgggtgesthdttddttd ertdenucfhrhhomhepufgvrghnucghhhhithhtohhnuceoshhpfihhihhtthhonhesshhp fihhihhtthhonhdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeffgfehgefggfehuedvte fhkedutdfggfdtueekgeektdetffdtgefhvdfgtdejleenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigv pedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehsphifhhhithhtohhnsehsphifhhhith htohhnrdhnrghmvg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i23c04076:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:25:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by melete.silentflame.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 35C8F7E073D; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 09:25:34 -0700 (MST) From: Sean Whitton To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 09:25:34 -0700 Message-ID: <87r0uk1eyp.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=64.147.123.24; envelope-from=spwhitton@spwhitton.name; helo=wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Hello, I use server-eval-at to call a function, in another daemon, which returns a buffer. So, server-eval-at tries (read "#") which of course fails, and indeed signals an error. I wonder if server-eval-at should return a special value to indicate that the remote computation returned something that is not readably printable? Or signal a particular error, which the caller might catch? -- Sean Whitton From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 20 12:09:00 2023 Received: (at 61658) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Feb 2023 17:09:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53382 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pU9eu-0005ZB-7r for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 12:09:00 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58074) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pU9es-0005Yv-Ba for 61658@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 12:08:59 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pU9em-0003TG-GC; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 12:08:52 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=TA3E2/HmuggptDh3DtbHDs/M30EWHFgkJyQHxZt/Q6Y=; b=jnybnEHUqWrW MJlhK4B7gLwh/ghs1jNo71GOGX317ivaUDeI1h6dEXSwUiPOA6aWUDdVwzR05UtrZCTfc5o6SYiru qyTzWpUas8kTi6FCKjj4xQ36figq3wy228mJ7sYpx8RWigETV6r8WvDGhYSgOJFG2y9o2s+lWQRLY f9jZwvwoVgmyWghV/6WmrSR/QOm7D98b3UA8AwyGT6MJbCLFedPpmh/YFgOHrhG7gaKffITLXD7OT sTmbEvI63XQBLRMd6+MPTrcJdX0jg6A6JLgsqYQVZ22cwK9rMUmVvB/Gcy7Kh3n984nKeSL/zMPBs D6CFXG2XLcv4MucGdA6YLA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pU9el-0004QP-Vy; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 12:08:52 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 19:09:00 +0200 Message-Id: <83zg98tgb7.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Sean Whitton In-Reply-To: <87r0uk1eyp.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> (message from Sean Whitton on Mon, 20 Feb 2023 09:25:34 -0700) Subject: Re: bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better References: <87r0uk1eyp.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61658 Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Sean Whitton > Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 09:25:34 -0700 > > I use server-eval-at to call a function, in another daemon, which > returns a buffer. So, server-eval-at tries (read "#") > which of course fails, and indeed signals an error. > > I wonder if server-eval-at should return a special value to indicate > that the remote computation returned something that is not readably > printable? Or signal a particular error, which the caller might catch? Why can't you make that function return something more sensible? Or even just nil? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 22 12:28:13 2023 Received: (at 61658) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Feb 2023 17:28:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60262 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pUsub-0000sq-LE for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 12:28:13 -0500 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:54567) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pUsuZ-0000se-WD for 61658@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 12:28:12 -0500 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720CA5C00CA; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 12:28:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 22 Feb 2023 12:28:06 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=spwhitton.name; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1677086886; x=1677173286; bh=Lq 5Po1+QmUml5kd8DjLMMEogYC4dTThVEwRRG+5ndnQ=; b=bctMYCx2AbePVa8hBa TktH+vv1pg6TB6uzAGj1Lx/3+Hlk5e3OCdZz4D4NCXrLDQymJzttXkQ9zxfVxFCF 0bMkgflM+dlFI2JwqkO0tQs7FlCGgwnpDiB1Eurbnk8+7R/ZHM3IH4b6P/8xVH9k LJnD7VGOe8Ulr9TpUhkMtn9+Ohv6B6a2ReUzTnczmAPwe+JP3HkeT0Uy/dNkiHuq oLO3C/J7rQXooIJALP4sWdllRPD8WwuSb1FArlCxsuCFRR68Xdm/jlk4EZPrUkah PMQmKtVK06U2UxXFDI14x79rrG4adChVnkIVG+2PhOr90F86gzsXrD+HBzZbJwnw e9iw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; t=1677086886; x=1677173286; bh=Lq5Po1+QmUml5kd8DjLMMEogYC4d TThVEwRRG+5ndnQ=; b=YHCnEiR/QqOyUTsmy97Zkk+wosnQbgmR+2s/l7+FLrQx +ghaDYbyAUGZlnYOwyys2VkMFwSfEjktqu2D8/5bIKnUwMxouHChDBwMfazSRHM4 13DRHDSLyq5e8cY56KJHchde5xaGD8UOcmTxHqGe2tp7Zutdcn7mZCnpg1qIxWqc Y7X/g5l4CVX9UjQjUqHZnL24OtjpIUZ1ClhS0ThPUKzvE+sou1RfJuSfFdp0jRWU B1oEWa5QXPvO92wkgrwWL3ZJ7S/rWN1h8SEbebRgmG2s+nzRLxIonvtn4aMOt0Jc CJB6VdXfGahp3ORZdAUvckL0H5nGMZ6mBikdlqfAiQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudejledgleelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdttddttdertdenucfhrhhomhepufgvrghn ucghhhhithhtohhnuceoshhpfihhihhtthhonhesshhpfihhihhtthhonhdrnhgrmhgvqe enucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedtffdvffeuleeuvdetkedvveehgfehvdegvefghfevudek geegleevgeejkeetkeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrih hlfhhrohhmpehsphifhhhithhtohhnsehsphifhhhithhtohhnrdhnrghmvg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i23c04076:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 12:28:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by melete.silentflame.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 207F27EC2A5; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:28:05 -0700 (MST) From: Sean Whitton To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better In-Reply-To: <83zg98tgb7.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 20 Feb 2023 19:09:00 +0200") References: <87r0uk1eyp.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83zg98tgb7.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:28:05 -0700 Message-ID: <87wn49boey.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61658 Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Hello, On Mon 20 Feb 2023 at 07:09PM +02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Sean Whitton >> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 09:25:34 -0700 >> >> I use server-eval-at to call a function, in another daemon, which >> returns a buffer. So, server-eval-at tries (read "#") >> which of course fails, and indeed signals an error. >> >> I wonder if server-eval-at should return a special value to indicate >> that the remote computation returned something that is not readably >> printable? Or signal a particular error, which the caller might catch? > > Why can't you make that function return something more sensible? Or > even just nil? Yes, that is a way to handle cases like this. I was thinking it might be better to have (define-error 'server-return-invalid-read-syntax "Remote function returned unreadable form" 'invalid-read-syntax) for a more flexible way to handle the situation. -- Sean Whitton From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 22 15:07:15 2023 Received: (at 61658) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Feb 2023 20:07:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60405 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pUvOU-0005FU-Pz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 15:07:15 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:46340) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pUvOS-0005FH-Fq for 61658@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 15:07:13 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pUvOM-0008TX-S0; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 15:07:07 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=iC8fangfNgZ31O77OWePOjwliuRHXvlYJN9MEU/YreI=; b=OUOMwCiOUTeI zvoTi6OekA98SvQ+4/RZlzY2/2USsSio9aytCgm+aajzTKM12mCD5xxs3ixMmiEPcJfH/HV67rDWo lpZklO3CakDQrYLhQF4BKmkN/XVYNqDO2ci1SpIPRDUXLw/u96i/FnD6oSmZSHmbXOUaAIHmHsshO 6SWZ56msnoHgRRn7cP62n3vgGpGKis9F/ecLJIpE9R3SkbIzX+mssm/V0MsZr2rMpVtIEg8ZSAgAh 3WOscxKgD0WCRVFE+4VYTVjKFl53xSeaHkkJDgxWh7Utowy1ozQWnq9Pim42oBMMG0Y5NLOxaTYNM CmJTipwOLxACvNxWjyebFA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pUvOB-0003Q6-00; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 15:07:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 22:07:09 +0200 Message-Id: <83r0uhqxaq.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Sean Whitton In-Reply-To: <87wn49boey.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> (message from Sean Whitton on Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:28:05 -0700) Subject: Re: bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better References: <87r0uk1eyp.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83zg98tgb7.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn49boey.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61658 Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Sean Whitton > Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:28:05 -0700 > > >> I use server-eval-at to call a function, in another daemon, which > >> returns a buffer. So, server-eval-at tries (read "#") > >> which of course fails, and indeed signals an error. > >> > >> I wonder if server-eval-at should return a special value to indicate > >> that the remote computation returned something that is not readably > >> printable? Or signal a particular error, which the caller might catch? > > > > Why can't you make that function return something more sensible? Or > > even just nil? > > Yes, that is a way to handle cases like this. I was thinking it might > be better to have > > (define-error 'server-return-invalid-read-syntax > "Remote function returned unreadable form" > 'invalid-read-syntax) > > for a more flexible way to handle the situation. But what we have now already gives you almost the same information: invalid-read-syntax, "#" I'm not sure I understand what would the above add to this. Is "Remote function returned unreadable form" really that much more informative, when the user doesn't expect an error? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 22 19:24:36 2023 Received: (at 61658) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Feb 2023 00:24:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60692 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pUzPY-0003d7-AD for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 19:24:36 -0500 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:42751) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pUzPU-0003cn-B6 for 61658@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 19:24:35 -0500 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43CD55C0109; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 19:24:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 22 Feb 2023 19:24:27 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=spwhitton.name; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1677111867; x=1677198267; bh=2f WsbncpO1kgxy9s4jI009WgGqMj9z/2tuHdIYbwkdQ=; b=ohuA634ZWYpVZn3+BQ lI+RB4gU11I3qFcU0AOFqwE6vNmHzWkBkodyA0uebJiRdzixVO0Gz0NXZlw7BsLe g/W/mFrya1DxO6L6uCrR/b6HI7aXsqRq/uP9ce2V/NPh46I6BlZLV9bYDkkFZlZI KklFTjsO8zllbZdp1nfXee7F0+N42W2GR2Y2k6UlGVdJhrKbrC5cXEiQFWha94l9 wJ2vkKAZWGXZyzDvoCipG/tZ3dbnE0yS0UnLHXmAJpZJNiGhi048q9tggWYCp3Qm 1PkGt08Cc6YNoU3gE0UZxQ5TW/z2OM2I7lP4wyQEggZiWO0Go+va0cgzZ5w3aHTI OxCA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; t=1677111867; x=1677198267; bh=2fWsbncpO1kgxy9s4jI009WgGqMj 9z/2tuHdIYbwkdQ=; b=WCBlFh8WHqtRR6g0vxgs5eLaa2gpBlu0rgjHECgyUQZx +cKsRXxE7OEV+1xRk3LazIVTiG3uLX6lF77tf7mmJVsyEwbAMu02dn0bcFldkrnz 0Q34/C1CsfUDWVzqOKOSYUFP6lUx+HkPkDtTSGTfBnUzxbuAfraw48aZhUea9JSc Lb5XVwNJrlx72j1cofoI/ILLQA5Ki0U5eTTJB5SBaPOGpmCOdsiyb9XDiND7MesC dvyNO3Rsi8MXdhX8d2JWp4yvkInfJmrdM9LrOOZ8WGZTP7H0xbgrZrHiwksjw1+I UARVZdyP9ZYediFDeXW9y0A5BTU0eZ2xq2Y3TVV6/w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudektddgvddvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdttddttdertdenucfhrhhomhepufgvrghn ucghhhhithhtohhnuceoshhpfihhihhtthhonhesshhpfihhihhtthhonhdrnhgrmhgvqe enucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedtffdvffeuleeuvdetkedvveehgfehvdegvefghfevudek geegleevgeejkeetkeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrih hlfhhrohhmpehsphifhhhithhtohhnsehsphifhhhithhtohhnrdhnrghmvg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i23c04076:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 19:24:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by melete.silentflame.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2B61D7E907F; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 17:24:26 -0700 (MST) From: Sean Whitton To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better In-Reply-To: <83r0uhqxaq.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 22 Feb 2023 22:07:09 +0200") References: <87r0uk1eyp.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83zg98tgb7.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn49boey.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83r0uhqxaq.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 17:24:26 -0700 Message-ID: <87v8jt8c05.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61658 Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Hello, On Wed 22 Feb 2023 at 10:07PM +02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Sean Whitton >> Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org >> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:28:05 -0700 >> [...] >> Yes, that is a way to handle cases like this. I was thinking it might >> be better to have >> >> (define-error 'server-return-invalid-read-syntax >> "Remote function returned unreadable form" >> 'invalid-read-syntax) >> >> for a more flexible way to handle the situation. > > But what we have now already gives you almost the same information: > > invalid-read-syntax, "#" > > I'm not sure I understand what would the above add to this. Is > "Remote function returned unreadable form" really that much more > informative, when the user doesn't expect an error? I'm thinking about the design of calling code, not errors that bubble up all the way to the user. If I want to catch this situation in calling code, I can catch 'invalid-read-syntax'. But for that to catch only the errors I intend to catch, I have to assume that the only call to 'read' in server-eval-at is the one that reads the remote daemon's output. But that's an implementation detail of server-eval-at, that could change. -- Sean Whitton From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Feb 23 01:24:36 2023 Received: (at 61658) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Feb 2023 06:24:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60972 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pV51v-0005Qv-UR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 01:24:36 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:33832) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pV51t-0005Qi-4C for 61658@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 01:24:34 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pV51n-0002NZ-Jw; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 01:24:27 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=llI9DG3FqJbF7RJR/lPZiIdXPkM8FbCNdt0k1UKyP8U=; b=Srb6pFrm6xfu DZ+qmvbZ5BBzIsjwa0otFhBLMAd8P0oOIQ6o/TehJ5o5lyWfJbiwhH5Ym/n8hFZgtnK1h9o2mfFRp G2ERYGZ4KznTyw5Jg9bPe5D7ivAoEXi4RfyJdl4EU2VDqg7ftcHOhh3afShl7sf25C/2NgIpc27aU riJWUvsQQFWDvcIawwwNwx/SHnQ0i+vztxAJTFmbmMFaEjE3PrIgiHJGA4Rv9YH39CopNDt+ZkKXc PHORaGXpPOGAt+kCce4DDulFc+2JEGsdinheqQPOPk19cgcRoyCn3ivkyGZJdM/L8ejxY8YQwssLN Wio/XJfdsF6sDpcEJZmzlg==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pV51m-0008SY-Q5; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 01:24:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 08:24:42 +0200 Message-Id: <83k008rj9x.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Sean Whitton In-Reply-To: <87v8jt8c05.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> (message from Sean Whitton on Wed, 22 Feb 2023 17:24:26 -0700) Subject: Re: bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better References: <87r0uk1eyp.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83zg98tgb7.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn49boey.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83r0uhqxaq.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8jt8c05.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61658 Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Sean Whitton > Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 17:24:26 -0700 > > Hello, > > On Wed 22 Feb 2023 at 10:07PM +02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > >> From: Sean Whitton > >> Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org > >> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:28:05 -0700 > >> [...] > >> Yes, that is a way to handle cases like this. I was thinking it might > >> be better to have > >> > >> (define-error 'server-return-invalid-read-syntax > >> "Remote function returned unreadable form" > >> 'invalid-read-syntax) > >> > >> for a more flexible way to handle the situation. > > > > But what we have now already gives you almost the same information: > > > > invalid-read-syntax, "#" > > > > I'm not sure I understand what would the above add to this. Is > > "Remote function returned unreadable form" really that much more > > informative, when the user doesn't expect an error? > > I'm thinking about the design of calling code, not errors that bubble up > all the way to the user. If I want to catch this situation in calling > code, I can catch 'invalid-read-syntax'. But for that to catch only the > errors I intend to catch, I have to assume that the only call to 'read' > in server-eval-at is the one that reads the remote daemon's output. But > that's an implementation detail of server-eval-at, that could change. So you want server.el to catch the error and re-throw it with a different signal in this particular case? Or am I misunderstanding? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Feb 23 12:27:20 2023 Received: (at 61658) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Feb 2023 17:27:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35191 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pVFNI-0003Qe-2V for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 12:27:20 -0500 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:37111) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pVFNG-0003QQ-1A for 61658@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 12:27:18 -0500 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0A5C5C012F; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 12:27:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 23 Feb 2023 12:27:12 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=spwhitton.name; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1677173232; x=1677259632; bh=Pz efJ5OH6l/ih5xpWSs7VA0/uSMpgs+yaSNPUla0hxw=; b=tvcqhN8FI4wB4Scoj8 94WN4QfyxZMqNUokN/ldxlj+x7hAS28vciC04Xwly5L8A0lgywcJaXWdIEJ91ouC cKoSFnJQZckqHyv86MXqFQPfVA3BFngHAYRI0ddNaL9DsnwWISHtJi4q52lIT3if 9DqeK/lRCi70tAX7e6hgEmksbSZwcbQ6W7bEHNwpcg5E4C8fPKLcxQ7TrJmw2708 K0iXhIeDMNCeNm16KLvj7AlIFXU3DZ66SFJwo+RDDK30wsacd7w3o7v9LWXOMiVb D3wFs4TQg6JgbNbM3asmb/kL1PoJeaeb5fHLyh+th0mRr+fWxo35TjkI0n3eOcL+ zFXA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; t=1677173232; x=1677259632; bh=PzefJ5OH6l/ih5xpWSs7VA0/uSMp gs+yaSNPUla0hxw=; b=Nrd6qXQuQw63xFUgoL1ghTsfjEbFVHQLel8TTRL8NQ1B fvaHyJbV3TFN7nlRwsnL1M9udz5kyYwXASMg/ex+vefpMWy7cr1r3xM5ps3p6IAO NdRNJ3FFqVLibETDyeV+Q9AQABxwMWQPImdVgCaxNCSy/ViIT7cQ9tCV5mF8Jeme eZJPjveQxXRj9rDgBZ45Wtwp47b3avaaeFY4kaxnKCqkhx84JVC4BMxzV45Is5rY SpMlTbqfnteU0h68XMuDJL+uT+To2Wx6zvTtPCXYd7e3Voe52S3XAF5XEhQ7OTTZ YbSS+kAAlh1OD5fdpKvf3m5oIATLwR6R6VE376AXkQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudekuddgleekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdttddttdertdenucfhrhhomhepufgvrghn ucghhhhithhtohhnuceoshhpfihhihhtthhonhesshhpfihhihhtthhonhdrnhgrmhgvqe enucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedtffdvffeuleeuvdetkedvveehgfehvdegvefghfevudek geegleevgeejkeetkeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrih hlfhhrohhmpehsphifhhhithhtohhnsehsphifhhhithhtohhnrdhnrghmvg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i23c04076:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 12:27:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by melete.silentflame.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C5F967EC668; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 10:27:11 -0700 (MST) From: Sean Whitton To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better In-Reply-To: <83k008rj9x.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 23 Feb 2023 08:24:42 +0200") References: <87r0uk1eyp.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83zg98tgb7.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn49boey.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83r0uhqxaq.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8jt8c05.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83k008rj9x.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 10:27:11 -0700 Message-ID: <87cz608f80.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61658 Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Hello, On Thu 23 Feb 2023 at 08:24AM +02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > So you want server.el to catch the error and re-throw it with a > different signal in this particular case? Or am I misunderstanding? Yes, that's what I'd like to do. -- Sean Whitton From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Feb 23 12:42:20 2023 Received: (at 61658) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Feb 2023 17:42:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35218 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pVFbo-0003rd-63 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 12:42:20 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37558) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pVFbm-0003rP-Fr for 61658@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 12:42:18 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pVFbg-0005C5-K0; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 12:42:12 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=Fzhc9FrNQydufrI1h9motRXptcutoe1/qBTL/7cdYWM=; b=MvCIOJs4Ylf2 PXSz2RCbiOnhEncPKUOmgPXO6+yD9UQKRLKJH6WbSZH8uHAKZWG+6BSyJp2LTQY9M4NlAtx+1HvQw bAIW36JjZwun42MBY6l8EU/WhWovaqEdOPHJlcyzWJ1vNXM7ZXb9Pxzf+XDeRwHfG9YsH2c7C70Vm Nmn2I/IbnkYLxdJfsBGHIoI0MAEbFSpcbhXUzJyNIoQRY3YCWXt7Ic1t6Sve/fYuJZOcrPStbjZJd 5sV0mZom0lJq/Qf7LVZ6FTEilrDPbfWn02iFs2oJUO8N517k+xkIuEtG2c3APgCMMjPZ5i3lJdfI9 Js4Dnq0QHEALoB21+X4Rug==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pVFbf-0006UQ-Gq; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 12:42:11 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 19:42:07 +0200 Message-Id: <83ilfsp9cg.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Sean Whitton In-Reply-To: <87cz608f80.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> (message from Sean Whitton on Thu, 23 Feb 2023 10:27:11 -0700) Subject: Re: bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better References: <87r0uk1eyp.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83zg98tgb7.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn49boey.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83r0uhqxaq.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8jt8c05.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83k008rj9x.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz608f80.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61658 Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Sean Whitton > Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 10:27:11 -0700 > > On Thu 23 Feb 2023 at 08:24AM +02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > So you want server.el to catch the error and re-throw it with a > > different signal in this particular case? Or am I misunderstanding? > > Yes, that's what I'd like to do. But then just define-error isn't enough, is it? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Feb 23 13:08:19 2023 Received: (at 61658) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Feb 2023 18:08:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35251 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pVG0w-00071K-OZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 13:08:18 -0500 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:50785) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pVG0v-000712-3n for 61658@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 13:08:17 -0500 Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154F55C013B; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 13:08:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 23 Feb 2023 13:08:12 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=spwhitton.name; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1677175692; x=1677262092; bh=h2 81DoReo8sN4Ovg+HmeAYwmZbicVgp77G57Hz1oe9Y=; b=tM21GPUqQ8ESXmAi2K gxxNvUzKmL6baCtN1PLuWA+SBOcXqdilQQifSnBhbCBfeEaLwcWkM4z15CEbmgNk /BTzrPpuahXN2tgiT3CFmrnuEpA/rOkeH2PTpgDalwAkHZ77XC3GAMEfa/Ht3D74 UTzzi4HQ8pp4K7zcDGM/3HaJyOfx24ZmgnbLCgQV9U+9gy9+JRjc02Vo2IgiLjFf 36c++BrryuwhlQL7VR5iD4VwTEl9tFrmDUl+xT5AasQ4DqixmkC2g/+V8FRO/A3O GOsFl2uxL8dDAWZU5P3B0AEmUkNw81yePMz4qHHP58nBB/u5LVAunZmeu703eLo7 lFJQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; t=1677175692; x=1677262092; bh=h281DoReo8sN4Ovg+HmeAYwmZbic Vgp77G57Hz1oe9Y=; b=ibrjkiNmbuF2jDu4iRhMn3WnTDFyoQ44x/V15Vqzzt42 rKxxESLxvHUgCwPmYvuGU4i2HRLu/Wo5g4aQboZnAqyv69pV/FdKcjcBXxq1ErVc pEAF1Uk2E0E3BTijhpinNyEzGbAuBYx/o/anHLx6vZU0D8LcIMyv9/2mA0WGqFFj eCGmSSq86ubX+kT+rbLKsY1QhY6OiV1X7TZzO2jCKQ77zTwwSdSG3AETyJu2sKMt u1DAIojcnc71OdfvwtH0UFAOVRTtIBBjjurHxytF6oL9AeHdhot4ekZfSkrh10qa Photti/tiEyOgvMuXhaiCHFGCVwnE5YfLz1IunKLKw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudekuddguddtiecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvfevufgjfhffkfgfgggtsehttddttddtredtnecuhfhrohhmpefuvggr nhcuhghhihhtthhonhcuoehsphifhhhithhtohhnsehsphifhhhithhtohhnrdhnrghmvg eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnheptdffvdffueeluedvteekvdevhefghedvgeevgffhvedu keeggeelveegjeekteeknecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepshhpfihhihhtthhonhesshhpfihhihhtthhonhdrnhgrmhgv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i23c04076:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 13:08:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by melete.silentflame.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B15A77EC67A; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 11:08:10 -0700 (MST) From: Sean Whitton To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better In-Reply-To: <83ilfsp9cg.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 23 Feb 2023 19:42:07 +0200") References: <87r0uk1eyp.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83zg98tgb7.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn49boey.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83r0uhqxaq.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8jt8c05.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83k008rj9x.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz608f80.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83ilfsp9cg.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 11:08:10 -0700 Message-ID: <87leko6yr9.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61658 Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Hello, On Thu 23 Feb 2023 at 07:42PM +02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Sean Whitton >> Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org >> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 10:27:11 -0700 >> >> On Thu 23 Feb 2023 at 08:24AM +02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> >> > So you want server.el to catch the error and re-throw it with a >> > different signal in this particular case? Or am I misunderstanding? >> >> Yes, that's what I'd like to do. > > But then just define-error isn't enough, is it? Right. I didn't mean to suggest it was -- my apologies. -- Sean Whitton From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 08 19:11:00 2023 Received: (at 61658-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Mar 2023 00:11:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50442 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pa3s4-0001D4-LE for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2023 19:11:00 -0500 Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.25]:37407) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pa3s3-0001Cm-4d for 61658-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2023 19:10:59 -0500 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B224320098B for <61658-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 19:10:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 08 Mar 2023 19:10:52 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=spwhitton.name; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1678320652; x=1678407052; bh=qs iACBMG7UtO7andwbz0pgAYhxWm6m296c5e/lmOg/8=; b=B94G+gyvhNH7JJh4Sl +qlK81Lo2oslLuxjYEubSX1Win8sSiQ6k3qtMz1dnwWBlQqGGbUz84/fRO9Ieajp mfFdIOElswmjY/Kj/18/rW03ecpTrUFhtX+uTNVnDef+FpV0PMyYUmLnc4YQqmcw TE07a67mSNG8sf4lihJhlTy4rHHKeU2JMMswdsw+CvfsgoPoEBEG99BhR+ai2D1k Hv102LHb5BGVSyr0QxcVIObdcO6NKLR288Lf55C3pSYP4NldhGxMFODjNz8LwKj+ wD04C332zLP03GsDgT9eXopPCDKz6tn9EptSwnUD8FjKcIBeth/XCC5SK3OdgSj7 x5Jg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1678320652; x=1678407052; bh=qsiACBMG7UtO7 andwbz0pgAYhxWm6m296c5e/lmOg/8=; b=OGAOXGT2vNoGIiKrw3Op2HS09Dqc6 b8pcFcZjUq9YG3kxKWZJ5Mh/VLmIG42NkuXjSW9anRzDPLgh9KATAbyLFXXs/1+G ZPOL/745ym4pG5lO2EKauHFRRzfoVqkmYVAO/FSQly6JPV0pPgq9aGdxRtHm4ma3 z0C8USJ3K779h5D7N2p3Gj4H2n9EG5xGbKt27nH34pdNZ57hi2FA8AnPMiYg9Vxq atLxOYQikkQwpL2k1TCyI0fy73SY44deUqVzq3BErPdoh00ksoYKtHZKAFPg5zCe bvxoIGOVBs2vJjSTXf5pJI9FiaqfEivtvBfebUVIPNTsTja+I8sHV7+AQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvddugedgudejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhvffujghffffkfgggtgesthdttd dttdertdenucfhrhhomhepufgvrghnucghhhhithhtohhnuceoshhpfihhihhtthhonhes shhpfihhihhtthhonhdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeffueettdefvddtte evgfeufeejgfegudfgfedutdegfeetkeehuddvfeejjeeifeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhi iigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehsphifhhhithhtohhnsehsphifhh hithhtohhnrdhnrghmvg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i23c04076:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <61658-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 19:10:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by melete.silentflame.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 27E5D7E1F8E; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 17:10:51 -0700 (MST) From: Sean Whitton To: 61658-done@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better In-Reply-To: <87leko6yr9.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> (Sean Whitton's message of "Thu, 23 Feb 2023 11:08:10 -0700") References: <87r0uk1eyp.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83zg98tgb7.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn49boey.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83r0uhqxaq.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8jt8c05.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83k008rj9x.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz608f80.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83ilfsp9cg.fsf@gnu.org> <87leko6yr9.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2023 17:10:51 -0700 Message-ID: <87zg8mbx84.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61658-done X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Hello, Now implemented. Doesn't seem to me like a NEWS entry is warranted, but if anyone strongly disagrees I can write one. -- Sean Whitton From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 09 04:40:40 2023 Received: (at 61658) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Mar 2023 09:40:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50910 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1paClM-00078M-6K for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2023 04:40:40 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-f49.google.com ([209.85.221.49]:34474) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1paClJ-000788-8Y for 61658@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2023 04:40:38 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-f49.google.com with SMTP id r18so1223038wrx.1 for <61658@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 09 Mar 2023 01:40:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1678354831; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=NwUE2581I5D/b3C3E3KNbxBnQkXW9rfh475I9VYSHhc=; b=aRzknbrStn17lQC1Qibb9C9qNDhx7cI1tA1G60rBSMy77tyV0bqCyu3GmwGcoqXmIy 6YtF0Q9Yl/xt8TkQd/4fLCIBcpnZysSkEe7oBP0GmlT2qs+G2rQBkJPZdmJFBIWVLujc B0qK4tMJ6ujpXd+nT1udrm54LJzv/Rs8L7e/pymx+QJhIQXBZwA2kBN3e1SyDeLC7xsd OETYqYflsgVNTbyj6CdX727Oz8m4EG1SjptKggHRhLxP1WvWjyG9Fs/H7lZD1Jn1DUPk Yml5Tm6jULG7VMLEL3IC0zdsYYttTbJMx39Ivt6zRJNcu0VwgaZYETZEp7CNC51lfMjh GLbA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678354831; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NwUE2581I5D/b3C3E3KNbxBnQkXW9rfh475I9VYSHhc=; b=q4XkIOPNFErHU72CZoGhYzrE9r2XO5PRRy3otfCE48i8+qSEguQfW00hCZKl7DZh9y YVJqz8wVsDXK20fgstMIvQRkuyJRX7776Rx0FOzAe4OyVKtM2GM8xrh9f82LsbOrFgmh N/L1DbkuvQ4oPsbA4+kYNFa0UsD0Ixum6zoArr+yxVSFhWjNgZGw8ywlmeHpagwTALw+ GLKMLzCvIQMJ48HzPVIjKasj6Yr87JN6zxuBocPM1FfjcdLdiHp0i11gMgz0XDXwIQwu mrF8OBGUgb8n2noo+eLFQAU4QpwaHFQbUVzOQxqmKYKlANBwhfYAQowAyHrMw7FWIOdG KFTQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKU3djh9quVjT/dmUUEGVm/sch1vwcJRhmw5sGjELLyONhwy2Nt0 Xe3ThCz9QbZ1VhR/b/pj1x4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8m4Bxb/B4+sJz3RbR9RblG/XvuxGwGH3/tj+IpItBskSH0Vvoilp19a/gf4caOAJkR7QaP4A== X-Received: by 2002:adf:edc4:0:b0:2cc:4d03:54cb with SMTP id v4-20020adfedc4000000b002cc4d0354cbmr12479415wro.28.1678354831000; Thu, 09 Mar 2023 01:40:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from rltb ([82.66.8.55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p13-20020a5d48cd000000b002c5598c14acsm17143690wrs.6.2023.03.09.01.40.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 09 Mar 2023 01:40:30 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Pluim To: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better In-Reply-To: <87zg8mbx84.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> (Sean Whitton's message of "Wed, 08 Mar 2023 17:10:51 -0700") References: <87r0uk1eyp.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83zg98tgb7.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn49boey.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83r0uhqxaq.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8jt8c05.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83k008rj9x.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz608f80.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83ilfsp9cg.fsf@gnu.org> <87leko6yr9.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <87zg8mbx84.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2023 10:40:30 +0100 Message-ID: <87o7p2ntyp.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61658 Cc: spwhitton@spwhitton.name X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) >>>>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 17:10:51 -0700, Sean Whitton said: Sean> Hello, Sean> Now implemented. Doesn't seem to me like a NEWS entry is warrant= ed, but Sean> if anyone strongly disagrees I can write one. It changes the possible behaviour of a public function, so I think it is warranted (and I have some comments on the docstrings, but I=CA=BCll address those separately). Robert --=20 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Mar 11 13:48:52 2023 Received: (at 61658) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Mar 2023 18:48:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58668 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pb4Gy-0005DQ-CC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 13:48:52 -0500 Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.19]:49413) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pb4Gw-0005DD-Bn for 61658@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 13:48:50 -0500 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CD14320090F; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 13:48:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 11 Mar 2023 13:48:44 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=spwhitton.name; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1678560524; x=1678646924; bh=rIE3sLDFQFaxFVeO7mz7yC1iD oiQtcHDq2qhJgZONvw=; b=Iyqj3CGIBxT2V/jVmKPYt9rURpu521nCRgyPedyeT t/H+Fq092ng98P2YlxO9YR/T/7gJN+nU9bEt0NmOifFDhKwCvts2IZ2AoQAj0mrB q+31nsrpAWwzWkfXdXicKZWC8gQkwepsOBrtFjknoUCW5gy2gsDdd+d7zEii9Fk/ 2WV93KwgGCsZZzAG6RXrZ4J7d6YtiyA7d7yRxWk5AIi0Z+BdSwlOevETJ7Q8pEWJ pkiPy2mAJ18mkjcJ0l9w2CibBvXcOY7g99SV7iOWd5sLdgQUTbjnFU/CAtR8XRCW B9Ue8OevHqfGSUOIV9MoRGbv3rpZCDF74jTEOXko6K56Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1678560524; x=1678646924; bh=rIE3sLDFQFaxFVeO7mz7yC1iDoiQtcHDq2q hJgZONvw=; b=ffarA8Gc68QFWytP8gU5srBs1GfKgOHOt3F/U04Du1CnOhkZWiF d7fmyeuym7whOihwq7/LjZrseXA8OHeNsuHyx1aQebtbi415AqSc8kygUjqFcNAs xUOsFV7S0SkUnJSwHU0iRV1uPZnEPd7O4WZ1x1HoLJQgS82huU93jrmeEVWB2AAI 2ZcSjbBNZY9c5zufWbx9PCWYRFCPm81o84PniBaI/33vNPOmj3oRXFasxZdAID0r q+1Ihwr+jkt3DuDv37VIpjGkUK6SF0aL+STqnhSpLiRvvp/MTtahaGJmZ7H3iZHa 1l/hHTIgPtLJ6IDqQwpXNPvnyIzGIzzFJLA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvddvtddgledvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgfgsehtqhdttddtreejnecuhfhrohhmpefuvggr nhcuhghhihhtthhonhcuoehsphifhhhithhtohhnsehsphifhhhithhtohhnrdhnrghmvg eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffefhfejudeguddtudekjeekueevvedvieeghfegleet uefhkeegkefhleejvddunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepshhpfihhihhtthhonhesshhpfihhihhtthhonhdrnhgrmhgv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i23c04076:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 13:48:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by athena.silentflame.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 68A3B1B6DF1; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 18:48:42 +0000 (UTC) From: Sean Whitton To: Robert Pluim Subject: Re: bug#61658: 30.0.50; server-eval-at might handle unreadable results better In-Reply-To: <87o7p2ntyp.fsf@gmail.com> (Robert Pluim's message of "Thu, 09 Mar 2023 10:40:30 +0100") References: <87r0uk1eyp.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83zg98tgb7.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn49boey.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83r0uhqxaq.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8jt8c05.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83k008rj9x.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz608f80.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83ilfsp9cg.fsf@gnu.org> <87leko6yr9.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <87zg8mbx84.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <87o7p2ntyp.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 11:48:42 -0700 Message-ID: <87a60j2kfp.fsf@athena.silentflame.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61658 Cc: 61658@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Hello, On Thu 09 Mar 2023 at 10:40AM +01, Robert Pluim wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 17:10:51 -0700, Sean Whitton said: > > Sean> Hello, > Sean> Now implemented. Doesn't seem to me like a NEWS entry is warra= nted, but > Sean> if anyone strongly disagrees I can write one. > > It changes the possible behaviour of a public function, so I think it > is warranted (and I have some comments on the docstrings, but I=CA=BCll > address those separately). But the new condition is a subtype of the old one, so it's a fully backwards-compatible change to the behaviour. Indeed, barely a change. Does anyone else have any intuitions about this? --=20 Sean Whitton From unknown Tue Jun 24 15:41:47 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2023 11:24:09 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator