GNU bug report logs - #64283
29.0.91; js-mode's mark-defun does not work correctly when functions have a comment on top

Previous Next

Full log

Message #31 received at 64283-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
Cc: dmitry <at> gutov.dev, 64283-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, mardani29 <at> yahoo.es
Subject: Re: bug#64283: 29.0.91; js-mode's mark-defun does not work correctly
 when functions have a comment on top
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 08:41:00 +0300

> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 13:11:43 -0700
> Cc: Daniel Martín <mardani29 <at> yahoo.es>,
>  Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>,
>  64283 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> 
> 
> > On Jun 27, 2023, at 4:01 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
> >> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 18:42:41 -0700
> >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
> >> Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>,
> >> 64283 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> What I see is that, after 4489450f37deafb013b1f0fc00c89f0973fda14a,
> >>> defun movement may be subtly broken if beginning-of-defun-function does
> >>> not return non-nil when it found the beginning of a defun.  One of the
> >>> affected modes is js-mode, but who knows if there are more out there.
> >>> 
> >>> We could either revert 4489450f37deafb013b1f0fc00c89f0973fda14a, because
> >>> of the incompatibilities it may cause (Yuan, what is the bug it tries to
> >>> fix?), or maybe adjust js-mode so that it follows the documentation of
> >>> beginning-of-defun-function and returns non-nil when it found the
> >>> beginning of a defun.  I've attached a patch that follows this second
> >>> approach, with some unit tests.  It fixes the bug on my side.
> >>> 
> >>> <0001-Make-js-beginning-of-defun-return-non-nil-on-success.patch>
> >> 
> >> The original problem that I tried to solve is that sometimes end-of-defun-function was called when point isn’t at the beginning of a defun, contrary to what the documentation claims. 
> >> 
> >> I first find out about it when writing defun movement functions for tree-sitter, but if you revert the commit now tree-sitter defun functions wouldn’t break: they have change quite a bit since then and treesit-end-of-defun don’t need to be called at the beginning of the defun anymore.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > Do you (or anyone else) see a problem with the alternative proposed by
> > Daniel?  If not, I'd prefer not to revert at this stage, but instead
> > to apply the simple fix Daniel suggested.
> 
> I don’t see any problem :-)

Thanks.  So I've now installed Daniel's patch on the released branch,
and I'm therefore closing this bug.

Previous Next

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