GNU bug report logs - #66991
Confusion in interactive-form with commands with bare interactive forms.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 66991 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#66991: Confusion in interactive-form with commands with bare interactive forms.
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2023 08:56:42 +0000

Hello, Stefan.

On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 12:38:34 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > I get a failure in /test/src/comp-tests.log in test
> > comp-tests-interactive-form, where the test is expecting

> >     (interactive)

> > but the result of running the test innards is

> >     (interactive nil)

> I'd argue the test should accept either form.

> > ..  I don't understand why I'm only seeing this test failure now.

> Indeed, it's odd.

> > Maybe it's a new test.

> `git log test/lisp/emacs-lisp/comp-tests.el` suggests there's been no
> activity there of late.

> > OK.  :-)  But I think fixing data.c will be easier and cleaner than
> > fixing all the tests which might test it.

> I wouldn't call it a fix because I don't think the current behavior is
> broken, but I see no problem with `interactive-form` replacing
> `(interactive)` for `(interactive nil)` when it can do so cheaply.
> It may break other (broken) tests, of course.

What about replacing (interactive "") with (interactive) too, and
documenting this?

The doc string says that "Return the interactive form of CMD, or nil
....".  But you seem to be arguing that there is no unique _THE_
interactive form.  Just three possibilities for _AN_ interactive form.
The doc string doesn't make this clear, and needs amending anyway.

To fix only the doc string rather than the code too, would double the doc
string's size.

>         Stefan

-- 
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.