GNU bug report logs - #62009
29.0.60; Emacs crashes on setf symbol-name

Previous Next

Full log

Message #89 received at 62009 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Daniel Mendler <mail <at> daniel-mendler.de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: philipk <at> posteo.net, michael_heerdegen <at> web.de, rpluim <at> gmail.com,
 monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, 62009 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, arstoffel <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#62009: 29.0.60; Emacs crashes on setf symbol-name
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 13:45:11 +0100

On 3/10/23 13:35, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 13:00:34 +0100
>> Cc: philipk <at> posteo.net, michael_heerdegen <at> web.de, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca,
>>  62009 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>,
>>  Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel <at> gmail.com>
>> From: Daniel Mendler <mail <at> daniel-mendler.de>
>>
>> On 3/10/23 12:50, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> Why bother?  Emacs is not in the business of preventing Lisp
>>> programmers from shooting themselves in the foot, certainly not when
>>> that incurs runtime overhead, even a small one.
>>
>> Of course Elisp is in the business of preventing programmers from
>> shooting themselves in the foot, otherwise we would extend Emacs in C.
> 
> We disagree here, and this is a very fundamental disagreement, which
> basically means continuing this argument is pointless, since we have
> no common basis.

I don't see that the disagreement is that strong. For example aset
signals an error if you try to access elements out of bounds.

(aset "abc" 3 ?x) -> args-out-of-range

So there are clearly use cases where signaling an error is justified. In
other cases you claim signaling an error is unjustified and a crash is
better. I don't like the crashing. That's the whole disagreement. I
suspect that you also don't like if Emacs crashes. Maybe it doesn't
bother you in this case, but in others.

Previous Next

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