GNU bug report logs - #66136
29.1; byte-compiler reports "misplaced interactive spec" with empty fct in lexical environment

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: "Jens Schmidt" <jschmidt4gnu <at> vodafonemail.de>

Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 13:12:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Found in version 29.1

Done: Mattias EngdegÄrd <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #17 received at 66136 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Jens Schmidt <jschmidt4gnu <at> vodafonemail.de>, 66136 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#66136: 29.1; byte-compiler reports "misplaced interactive
 spec" with empty fct in lexical environment
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:59:21 -0400
>> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 23:39:47 +0200
>> From:  Jens Schmidt via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
>>  the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
>> 
>> Found the issue I think:
>> 
>> -------------------- bad case --------------------
>> (macroexp-parse-body '("Allows interactive calls." (interactive "^P")))
>> 
>> =>
>> 
>> (("Allows interactive calls.")
>>  (interactive "^P"))
>> -------------------- bad case --------------------
>> 
>> -------------------- good case --------------------
>> (macroexp-parse-body '("Allows interactive calls." (interactive "^P") nil))
>> 
>> =>
>> 
>> (("Allows interactive calls." (interactive "^P"))
>>  nil)
>> -------------------- good case --------------------
>> 
>> That is, macroexp-parse-body does not consider the case that a body can
>> consist of declarations only and, if this is the case, puts the last
>> declaration into the body forms.
>> 
>> Could provide a patch if somebody confirms that this is really the root
>> cause of this issue.  Yet on the other hand this is pretty deep elisp,
>> so if somebody else steps forward, I'll be glad as well.
>
> Adding Stefan, in case he has comments/suggestions.

I'm in favor of requiring *something* after the declarations.
So yes, the first case above is a bug and should be fixed, but rather
than return

    (("Allows interactive calls." (interactive "^P"))
     nil)

I think it should return something like

    (("Allows interactive calls." (interactive "^P"))
     ,(macroexp-warn-and-return "Missing body" ...))
    

-- Stefan





This bug report was last modified 1 year and 300 days ago.

Previous Next


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