GNU bug report logs - #65516
30.0.50; Edebug behavior of signaling errors in &or

Previous Next

Full log

Message #35 received at 65516 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>, 65516 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65516: 30.0.50; Edebug behavior of signaling errors in &or
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 07:52:13 +0200

Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> Michael Heerdegen [2023-08-28 00:58:31] wrote:
>> Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>>> Hmm... actually, looking at `def-form` again it seems it doesn't use
>>> `&define` nor `(edebug-)gate`.
>> Dunno if this helps, I'm understanding it only half, but AFAIU,
>> `def-form` falls back to `edebug-form' which looks at &define and uses
>> `edebug-gate' indirectly when calling `edebug-list-form'.
>
> Hmm... Could be, indeed.  In any case, this "gate" business is
> quite messy.

Yup :-)

>
> I'd be tempted to start removing uses of it, bit by bit, to try and see
> what breaks.  And if needed, maybe add a new replacement for it that
> would be better defined (I'm imagining a kind of "scoped gate", which
> could look like `[&gate-in ... [&gate-lock ...SPECS...] ...]` such
> that if `...SPECS...` fails to match, we propagate this failure
> immediately up to the `gate-in`).
>
> This way
>
>     [&gate-in [&or ["foo" &gate-lock ...]
>                    ["foo" "bar"]]]
>
> would never fallback to ["foo" "bar"] whereas
>
>     [&or [&gate-in ["foo" &gate-lock ...]]
>          ["foo" "bar"]]]
>
> would fallback to ["foo" "bar"] if "..." fails to match.

That's a possibility.  I can't say much more because I fail to
understand the motivation why gate is used in the first place.  What did
the developers using it want to achieve?

Previous Next

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