[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#23407: .dir-local settings get obliterated on running a major mode f
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
bug#23407: .dir-local settings get obliterated on running a major mode function. |
Date: |
Tue, 03 May 2016 14:10:45 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
>> > + ;; delay-mode-hooks is set when `byte-compile-file' is the caller.
>> > + ;; It is essential that we call `hack-local-variables' in order to
>> > + ;; set up `lexical-binding', since `run-mode-hooks' is prevented
>> > + ;; from doing its job.
>> > + (when delay-mode-hooks
>> > + (with-demoted-errors "File local-variables error: %s"
>> > + (hack-local-variables 'no-mode))))
>> But this seems terribly brittle. Do we care about delay-mode-hooks (as
>> the code says) or about byte-compile-file (as the comment says)?
> This bit of code was necessitated by:
> #########################################################################
> commit 3ba6b3a9c1e0565ee5f45f11a9c09702a24f8453
> Author: Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun Apr 12 03:23:35 2015 +0100
>
> Speed up byte-compilation and autoload generation by avoiding mode-hooks
>
> This prevents emacs-lisp-mode-hook from being run everytime an
> autoload file is generated, which can account for a fraction of
> package installation time depending on the hooks the user has
> configured.
>
> * lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el (byte-compile-file): Use
> * delay-mode-hooks.
>
> * lisp/emacs-lisp/autoload.el (autoload-find-file)
> (autoload-find-generated-file): Use delay-mode-hooks.
> #########################################################################
Hmm... so you're working around someone else's hack!
> if hack-local-variables isn't run, lexical-binding (for example) doesn't
> get set up, and make bootstrap fails.
Of course: hack-local-variables should be run unconditionally.
>> If it's the former, then the comment needs to be fixed, if it's the
>> latter, than we need to find some other way to tell this code what's
>> going on.
> I don't really understand the question. Sure, that bit of code is ugly.
> But the comment both motivates ("it's `byte-compile-file''s fault") and
> explains the problem (which is that `delay-mode-hooks' being set would
> prevent `run-mode-hook', and thus `hack-local-variable' from running).
> It is possible that other stuff might call `normal-mode' like this.
> What sort of changes do you advocate for the comment (or for the code)?
How 'bout doing
(setq-local hack-local-variables--done t)
in hack-local-variables, and then testing that instead of testing
delay-mode-hooks?
Stefan