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

Full log

Message #20 received at 73872 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, sigurddam <at> hotmail.com
Cc: 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, 21 Dec 2024 11:12:37 +0200

Ping! Can we please make progress with this bug report?

> Cc: sigurddam <at> hotmail.com, 73872 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2024 15:10:53 +0200
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> 
> > 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.)
> 
> 
> 
> 

Previous Next

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