Subject: RE: bug#6991: Please keep bytecode out of *Backtrace* buffers

From: "Drew Adams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:43:16 -0800

> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 12:06 PM
>
> > You can try the simple patch below.  It doesn't cut it for me, and
> > I think the only way to make it work well would be to change the
> > representation of the byte-codes so that they're not just a "unibyte
> > string" but an object with a distinctive type: the patch 
> > only catches the case where the byte-codes appear within a printed
> > byte-compiled-function, not when they're arguments to the 
> > `byte-code' function or to the `make-byte-code' function, and I'm sure 
> > there can be other cases.
> 
> Thanks, but I don't build Emacs.  Hopefully something like 
> this will be added to Emacs itself, even if it is only a partial
> solution.
> 
> Did you mean to close the bug?  It seems to be getting closed 
> just because (?) 6991-done is in the recipients list.
> 
> If you did not mean to close it, let's please reopen it.  
> Even if it is made only a wishlist item, it is a useful enhancement
> request.

Can we please follow up on this?  The status seems to be `wishlist' but tagged
`wontfix', which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I cannot build Emacs to test this.  Could someone else please test it?  Or could
it please be installed without testing?  (Seriously.)

It would _really_ be helpful if there were no binary crap in Lisp backtraces.
Does that stuff actually help anyone?  If so, perhaps we can keep it as a
(non-default) option, but otherwise, can't we simply elide anything that is not
a printable character, at the least?

I mean replace it by `...', not just change a `display' property.  The problems
I encounter arise from trying to copy + paste the backtrace.

I don't understand why we even have backtraces that one cannot copy & paste
completely, into, e.g., an email.  What's the point of that?  If I try to paste
a copied backtrace I need to paste bits of it piecemeal, because the binary
parts do not paste.  That is tedious and error prone.  Many users might not even
realize that the backtrace did not get completely pasted.

Why is it so hard to advance on something like this?  Stefan provided a C patch
to test, and that was the end of the thread.

So much stuff gets added to the Emacs C sources anyway, sometimes breaking all
kinds of stuff.  Why don't you please just go ahead and install your patch,
Stefan, so we can see whether and how much it helps?

Please consider trying to do something to advance this schmilblick.  I am sure
that it will be appreciated by more than just me.