Subject: Re: bug#65620: void function edebug-after

From: Gerd Möllmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 14:27:42 +0200

On 01.09.23 11:23, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

> I think a better way of handling this would be to have a "base function"
> for edebug-after (and for edebug-before), as opposed to the nil that each
> of these currently has.  These functions would throw an error asking the
> user to check the edebug spec.  Something like (untested):
> 
>      (defun edebug-after (before-index after-index form)
>        "Version of `edebug-after' to call when edebug is not yet set up.
>      This function gets temporarily replaced by a real function when
>      edebug becomes active."
>        (error "Invalid call to `edebug-after' for %S: Is your debug spec \
>      correct?" form))
> 
> ..  What do you think?

I find that an excellent idea!  The error "void function edebug-after" 
might indeed be considered a bit unhelpful by some :-).  Haven't tested 
anything either, though...