GNU bug report logs - #67142
29.1; with-sqlite-transaction commits on exception rather than rolling back

Previous Next

Full log

Message #20 received at 67142 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Vasilij Schneidermann <mail <at> vasilij.de>
To: Visuwesh <visuweshm <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 67142 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#67142: 29.1; with-sqlite-transaction commits on exception
 rather than rolling back
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 10:08:36 +0100

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

> > I don't understand this part, sorry.  Why do we need a symbol to
> > return the result of the body?
> 
> db-var and func-var are uninterned symbols in the macro expansion but
> the variables 'result' and 'commit' marked below aren't.  If the intent
> is not to expose these variables to the macro's BODY, the inner let
> should also uninterned symbols right?

Correct, this is what I was hinting at. As annoying as it is, when
writing unhygienic macros one should use uninterned symbols to avoid
exposing additional variables to the BODY argument.

Alternatively, the pattern of `(let ((return (...))) ... return)` can be
replaced with `(prog1 (...) ...)`.

@Eli: The new patch looks better and closer to how the issue is solved
in the Ruby sqlite3 gem. I'm still not sure about this use of
`unwind-protect` being correct, but it does preserve the backtrace in
case of an error better than when I used `(condition-case e (...) (error
(apply #'signal e)))`.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

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