GNU bug report logs - #65620
void function edebug-after

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
Subject: bug#65620: closed (Re: bug#65620: void function edebug-after)
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2023 13:59:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your bug report

#65620: void function edebug-after

which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 65620 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

-- 
65620: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=65620
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
To: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>, acm <at> muc.de,
 65620-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65620: void function edebug-after
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2023 13:57:38 +0000

Hello, Gerd.

On Sat, Sep 02, 2023 at 15:15:55 +0200, Gerd Möllmann wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de> writes:

[ .... ]

> > .... However, edebugging through a function which invoked such a
> > macro can produce errors.  This is all caused by having a `form'
> > element in the edebug spec where there should be `sexp'.

> > To try and ameliorate this, I propose adding a sentence to the
> > description of `sexp' in doc/lispref/edebug.texi:


> > diff --git a/doc/lispref/edebug.texi b/doc/lispref/edebug.texi
> > index c5be3a40d2c..a64ebda6803 100644
> > --- a/doc/lispref/edebug.texi
> > +++ b/doc/lispref/edebug.texi
> > @@ -1289,6 +1289,8 @@ Specification List
> >  @item sexp
> >  A single unevaluated Lisp object, which is not instrumented.
> >  @c an "expression" is not necessarily intended for evaluation.
> > +If the macro evaluates an argument at macro-expansion time, you should
> > +use @code{sexp} for it, not @code{form}.

> >  @item form
> >  A single evaluated expression, which is instrumented.  If your macro


> Yes, that's helpful.

Thanks!  I've committed the patch to the two files, and I'm now closing
the bug.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: void function edebug-after
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 12:57:29 +0000

Hello, Emacs.

On a recent master branch Emacs:
(i) emacs -Q
(ii) Insert the following into *scratch*:

(defmacro hash-if (condition then-form &rest else-forms)
  "A conditional compilation macro analogous to C's #if.
Evaluate CONDITION at macro-expansion time.  If it is non-nil,
expand the macro to THEN-FORM.  Otherwise expand it to ELSE-FORMS
enclosed in a `progn' form.  ELSE-FORMS may be empty."
  (declare (indent 2)
           (debug (form sexp &rest sexp)))
  (if (eval condition lexical-binding)
      then-form
    (cons 'progn else-forms)))

(defun foo (bar)
  (hash-if (< emacs-major-version 19)
      (car bar)
    (cons bar bar)))

(iii) Evaluate hash-if by putting point after it and doing C-x C-e.
(iv) Attempt to instrument foo for edebug by putting point inside foo and
  doing C-u C-M-x.  This throws the error: "Ignoring macroexpansion
  error: (void-function edebug-after)".  This attempt to evaluate
  edebug-after is a bug.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Previous Next

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