[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#62417: ; Regression: 59ecf25fc860 is the first bad commit
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#62417: ; Regression: 59ecf25fc860 is the first bad commit |
Date: |
Sat, 25 Mar 2023 16:29:24 +0300 |
> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
> Cc: João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com>,
> 62417@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 13:17:40 +0000
>
> We would have to call the function with the buffer name instead of the
> buffer object. So the `buffer-match-p' fix would look like this:
>
> diff --git a/lisp/subr.el b/lisp/subr.el
> index 99ddd813867..3210ab05702 100644
> --- a/lisp/subr.el
> +++ b/lisp/subr.el
> @@ -7140,8 +7140,8 @@ buffer-match-p
> (string-match-p condition (buffer-name buffer)))
> ((pred functionp)
> (if (eq 1 (cdr (func-arity condition)))
> - (funcall condition buffer)
> - (funcall condition buffer arg)))
> + (funcall condition (buffer-name buffer))
> + (funcall condition (buffer-name buffer) arg)))
> (`(major-mode . ,mode)
> (eq
> (buffer-local-value 'major-mode buffer)
No, I think we should pass to the function the original buffer-or-name
argument. It makes no sense to me to have buffer-match-p second-guess
what a caller-defined function should get as its argument.
> I don't think I am a fan of this, as most of the time a buffer is more
> immediately useful. Perhaps João's initial change would be better in
> that case, for the sake of backwards compatibility? Or does it make
> sense to mention this as an incompatible lisp change?
The best solution is the one that completely removes the backward
incompatibility, and I think what I suggested does just that.
- bug#62417: ; Regression: 59ecf25fc860 is the first bad commit, (continued)
- bug#62417: ; Regression: 59ecf25fc860 is the first bad commit, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/03/27
- bug#62417: ; Regression: 59ecf25fc860 is the first bad commit, João Távora, 2023/03/27
- bug#62417: ; Regression: 59ecf25fc860 is the first bad commit, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/03/27
- bug#62417: ; Regression: 59ecf25fc860 is the first bad commit, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/03/27
- bug#62417: ; Regression: 59ecf25fc860 is the first bad commit, João Távora, 2023/03/27
- bug#62417: ; Regression: 59ecf25fc860 is the first bad commit, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/03/27
- bug#62417: ; Regression: 59ecf25fc860 is the first bad commit, Philip Kaludercic, 2023/03/27
- bug#62417: ; Regression: 59ecf25fc860 is the first bad commit, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/03/28
- bug#62417: ; Regression: 59ecf25fc860 is the first bad commit, João Távora, 2023/03/27
- bug#62417: ; Regression: 59ecf25fc860 is the first bad commit, Philip Kaludercic, 2023/03/25
- bug#62417: ; Regression: 59ecf25fc860 is the first bad commit,
Eli Zaretskii <=