GNU bug report logs - #77387
[PATCH 0/2] man-db: Better parsing of man macros.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #29 received at 77387 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Sergey Trofimov <sarg <at> sarg.org.ru>
Cc: Josselin Poiret <dev <at> jpoiret.xyz>, 77387 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>, Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe <at> gnu.org>,
 Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>, Christopher Baines <guix <at> cbaines.net>
Subject: Re: [bug#77387] [PATCH 1/2] man-db: Parse man macro arguments better.
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 17:11:55 +0200

Hi,

Sergey Trofimov <sarg <at> sarg.org.ru> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> +             (in-string? #f))
>>> +    (if (>= pos (string-length input))
>>> +        ;; End of input
>>> +        (unless in-string?
>>> +          (reverse (if (null? current)
>>> +                       tokens
>>> +                       (cons (list->string (reverse current)) tokens))))
>>
>> So this procedure can return *unspecified*, right?  Sounds fishy.
>>
> Why is it fishy? Is it unconventional? Such return value is handled
> correctly by the calling code (`match`).

It’s unconventional; usually, procedures are monomorphic and in this
case, the expectation is that it always returns a list of tokens.

I would either return the empty list in the ‘in-string?’ case or throw
an exception (because that means we failed to parse the thing).

Does that make sense?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Previous Next

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