[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bug #22983 (syntax-ppss returns wrong result) is still open. Could w

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: Bug #22983 (syntax-ppss returns wrong result) is still open. Could we fix it before the release, please.
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 22:48:29 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

Hello, Dmitry.

On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 01:15:47AM +0300, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
> On 06/08/2016 01:09 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

> > I've just tried it again in the emacs-25 branch, and it is as badly
> > broken as it was back in March.

> I think it was considered to be too risky a change even back in March, 
> and it was never discussed as a possible blocker.

I think I'd be happy enough about it being fixed in master, if the fix
happens before the release.  :-).  The trouble is, if there's no
deadline, it'll never get fixed.

> But that's not for me to decide.

> > With this fix, and using this new function in place of the current
> > syntax-ppss in accordance with its spec, the above bug wouldn't happen.

> > If my fix isn't wanted, can somebody who likes syntax-ppss PLEASE fix it
> > before the release, so that, finally, it behaves according to its
> > specification.

> Is there something wrong with the patch I posted?

The one on 2016-03-10 02:49:34 +0200?

Yes, I think having the binary toggle `syntax-ppss-dont-widen' purely to
direct the innards of the function is poor programming (since it
explicitly toggles a toggle inside a supposedly abstract function).  I
think an improvement would be to dispense with that toggle, and have two
distinct functions, one in place of `syntax-ppss-dont-widen' being nil,
and the other in place of `s-p-d-w' being non-nil.  The latter function
might usefully have an extra parameter specifying the base point that
parse-partial-sexp should be calculated from.  That would leave quite a
few options open for the internal logic of the function.

Or something like that.

> http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=22983#47

Yes, that one.  I had trouble finding it on the web archive.

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]