GNU bug report logs - #74235
[PATCH] ; Remove 'nil' from some 'lua-ts-mode' options

Previous Next

Full log

Message #23 received at 74235 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: john muhl <jm <at> pub.pink>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 74235 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#74235: [PATCH] ; Remove 'nil' from some 'lua-ts-mode' options
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2024 14:54:47 -0600

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

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

>> From: john muhl <jm <at> pub.pink>
>> Cc: 74235 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2024 08:57:37 -0600
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> >> From: john muhl <jm <at> pub.pink>
>> >> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2024 15:22:34 -0600
>> >> 
>> >> * lisp/progmodes/lua-ts-mode.el (lua-ts-luacheck-program):
>> >> (lua-ts-inferior-program): Remove 'nil' as it is never a valid
>> >> choice.  (Bug#74235)
>> >
>> > IMO, the use of these options in the code is not clean: if these
>> > programs are not installed, the commands which reference these options
>> > will signal errors whose diagnostic might not clearly indicate the
>> > root cause.  I would like to see a cleaner handling of such
>> > contingencies by this mode.  Does this make sense, and if so, would
>> > you like to suggest changes to that effect?
>> 
>> The only idea I’ve come up with so far is showing a warning that
>> mentions the incorrectly set option. Does that sound like what you
>> have in mind? If not I’d appreciate some more explicit guidance.
>
> How about signaling user-error from the commands that invoke those
> programs, when they are missing?

Agree that’s better than a warning. It seems flymake already
handles the case where it can’t find the requested program so I
left that part as is.

[0001-Fix-some-lua-ts-mode-options-Bug-74235.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Previous Next

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