emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[debbugs-tracker] bug#19324: closed (25.0.50; add-function and nil)


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#19324: closed (25.0.50; add-function and nil)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 00:45:02 +0000

Your message dated Fri, 12 Dec 2014 08:44:11 +0800
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#19324: 25.0.50; add-function and nil
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #19324,
regarding 25.0.50; add-function and nil
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
19324: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19324
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: 25.0.50; add-function and nil Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 12:55:22 +0800
1. Goto a buffer (e.g. text-mode) with eldoc-documentation-function nil
2. (add-function :after-until (local 'eldoc-documentation-function) #'ignore)
3. Move around to trigger eldoc error: (void-function nil)

Looks like the orig function is unconditionally called without checking
it's a function object.

Leo



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#19324: 25.0.50; add-function and nil Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 08:44:11 +0800 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (CentOS Linux 7 (Core))
On 2014-12-11 14:11 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> No I don't have a fix for this.
> `add-function' is designed to work on places that only hold functions,
> so any other value (such as nil) will create problems.
>
> IOW a variable that can hold "either nil or a function" is not something
> that add-function supports.
>
> I guess we could treat nil as an alias for `ignore' in the "proxy
> function", which would fix this particular issue.  See patch below.
> But I don't intend to handle all the cases in which a "nil function" can
> show up.  Many/most uses of `foo-function' actually give a special
> meaning to nil which is different from `ignore'.
> So I'm not sure we should cater to this particular case.

Thanks, Stefan, for the explanation. In that case maybe the workaround
isn't needed because we still cannot tell if ORIG is missing. I consider
the bug closed.

Leo


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

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