GNU bug report logs - #79380
31.0.50; Flymake does not check Elisp code anymore

Previous Next

Full log

Message #20 received at 79380 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Spencer Baugh <sbaugh <at> janestreet.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 79380 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, mail <at> daniel-mendler.de
Subject: Re: bug#79380: 31.0.50; Flymake does not check Elisp code anymore
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 12:20:14 -0400

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

On Thu, Sep 4, 2025, 12:03 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: Spencer Baugh <sbaugh <at> janestreet.com>
> > Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 11:45:12 -0400
> > Cc: mail <at> daniel-mendler.de, 79380 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >
> >  Shouldn't the tests of the value of the user option use stringp
> >  instead of null?
> >
> > Is that the convention?  I always feel like it's better to test for null
> explicitly, so that if the user sets the
> > variable to a symbol or list or something they get an error which can
> help them track down their mistake.
>
> I don't think this is about conventions.  In this specific case, any
> value that is not a string will signal an error in
> elisp-flymake-byte-compile--executable, exactly like nil did in the
> patch that was installed.  So I think any value that is not a string
> should be handled as nil (in addition to the checking of strings that
> the code already does).
>


Yes, my suggestion is that signaling an error is good because it shows that
the user's configuration is wrong.

>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

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