GNU bug report logs - #73872
30.0.91; emacs-lisp-mode-syntax-table active when calling `describe-variable' on variable with textually large value.

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Sigurd Dam Sonniks <sigurddam <at> hotmail.com>

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 03:09:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Found in version 30.0.91

Done: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #17 received at 73872 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: sigurddam <at> hotmail.com, 73872 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#73872: 30.0.91; emacs-lisp-mode-syntax-table active when
 calling `describe-variable' on variable with textually large value.
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2024 15:10:53 +0200
> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2024 18:41:23 -0500
> 
> >> Ping!  Sigurd, could you please answer Stefan's questions?
> > Oh, I am so sorry, Stefan's mail had ended up in my junk folder. I
> > thought we were still waiting for his reply. Thanks for pinging me!
> >> > I'm curious: in which context did you notice this?
> >> > Does it lead to an undesirable behavior in a specific case?
> > I have rainbow-delimiters-mode from the rainbow-delimiters package
> > enabled everywhere, which means that font lock is enabled everywhere.
> > The syntax table of help mode has ?; as a comment starter, so wherever
> > it is used in docstrings, the remainder of that line will be
> > highlighted as a comment in the help buffer. I changed the syntax
> > class of ?; in help-mode-syntax-table, but I noticed that sometimes it
> > would still be interpreted as a comment starter, which led me to
> > finding the bug.
> 
> Aahhhh!
> So the underlying problem already bite in the usual case but you worked
> around it by changing `help-mode-syntax-table`.
> I think your change to `help-mode-syntax-table` is about right, so we
> should include it in any fix to this bug.

I was going to install that change, but then I noticed that it removed
the call to terpri.  Is that intentional?

(And why did we start discussing this in private email, without CC'ing
the bug tracker?  I've now added it; please use Reply All to reply.)




This bug report was last modified 186 days ago.

Previous Next


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