GNU bug report logs - #71379
29.3; Elisp compiler: warnings for formats given insufficiently many arguments

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 71379 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, schnoebelen.ph <at> gmail.com, mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com
Subject: bug#71379: 29.3; Elisp compiler: warnings for formats given insufficiently many arguments
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 09:21:56 +0300

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 01:22:49 +0200
> Cc: 71379 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, philippe schnoebelen <schnoebelen.ph <at> gmail.com>
> 
> Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > 6 juni 2024 kl. 06.38 skrev Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>:
> >
> >> On second thought, this is still fine to go in now, but I wonder
> >> whether we should move these to the places where the corresponding
> >> functions are defined, and leave in bytecomp.c only those which are
> >> primitives defined in C?  That would mean 'warn' and 'user-error'
> >> should be moved to their respective Lisp files.
> >
> > Indeed it's a question I always ask myself every so often, and sometimes we distribute properties to definitions.
> > However, in this case it seems better to keep them in one place: it's only a small handful of functions, and this way the properties are kept local to the byte-compiler.
> 
> No strong opinion, but I think this cuts both ways: keeping it local to
> the definition of the functions themselves makes it clear to anyone
> looking there for inspiration how to add such warnings to their own
> `format` functions.

Indeed.  In addition, some functions marked with this property already
do that in their own files.  Which was why I asked that question in
the first place.

Previous Next

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