Subject: bug#73441: 31.0.50; Unstable proced-refine-test failure

From: Michael Albinus <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 09:04:04 +0100

Laurence Warne <[email-masked]> writes:

> Hi Michael,

Ni Laurence,

> I added a conditional skip for the refine tests if it looks like
> there's a NaN, let me know if it looks ok.

Thanks. In general it looks fine, but I have one nit: In
proced--assert-process-valid-cpu-refinement-explainer you still call
(thing-at-point 'number). But the explainer is active in case of
problems, so it is likely that there isn't a number. Wouldn't it be
better to call (thing-at-point 'symbol)? Or something like
(or (thing-at-point 'number) (thing-at-point 'sexp))?

> Thanks, Laurence

Best regards, Michael.