[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#41988: 28.0.50; Edebug unconditionally instruments definitions with
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
bug#41988: 28.0.50; Edebug unconditionally instruments definitions with &define specs |
Date: |
Sun, 04 Apr 2021 16:16:16 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
>> [ Disclaimer: I don't understand the precise semantics of `gate`, tho
>> I do remember using it once via trial-and-error. So maybe it wouldn't
>> prevent it, but if doesn't prevent it, then it doesn't likely "fix"
>> our problem ;-) ]
> AIUI the semantics of "gate" aren't that complex, it just means "don't
> backtrack beyond this point."
[ Yes, that's the part I understand. But it's not clear where
backtracking is possible and where it's not. At least, the code that
I saw in edebug.el didn't match my expectations back when I looked at
it, hence my not feeling quite sure what the semantics are (and/or
should be).
IIRC the issue was that the scope of that effect wasn't clear: if you
think of Prolog's cut, its effect is local to a particular definition,
whereas I think the scope of `gate` is not nearly as clear because
there isn't such a notion of "definition". ]
>> >> I'm not sure it's worth the trouble: the pain seems higher than the gain.
>> > This bug is rather nasty when it's hit (it took me quite a while to
>> > debug/hunt down),
>> Could you remind me what was this nasty outcome?
> The original bug report was
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=41853 (extremely subtle
> bug due to mismatch between frequency and offset vector).
Thanks, that's worst than I thought indeed.
>> > so I think it would be reasonable to prevent. We already
>> > disable backtracking for literal symbols, and I think forms that require
>> > multiple &define forms with backtracking should be exceedingly rare and can
>> > be rewritten as you did with cl-flet.
>> Emitting a warning would be much more helpful than just silently
>> "cut"ting the backtracking.
> A gate isn't silent, it would cause a hard error in this case.
What I meant is that a gate would just make the old cl-flet spec fail in
most cases, with no explanation why that spec now fails even though it
worked in the past.
Stefan