GNU bug report logs - #28747
26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 28747 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 28747 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Gemini Lasswell <gazally <at> runbox.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 08:02:56 -0700

The symbol &rest in an Edebug spec has a different meaning than it has
in an argument list. In particular, "&rest body" in an Edebug spec is
erroneous usage because it is asking Edebug to match something that
can match nothing (body) as many times as it can, which makes an
infinite loop.

To repro, navigate to the definition of crm-completion-help in
lisp/emacs-lisp/crm.el and:

M-x eval-buffer RET
C-u C-M-x

Result: Too deep - perhaps infinite loop in spec?

Here are the macros I've found that have this incorrect usage of &rest
in their Edebug specs:

crm--completion-command
easy-mmode-define-navigation
inline--letlisteval
inline--leteval
ses--letref

Edebug specs have been using &rest for a really long time and it
mostly gets used correctly. But &repeat would be better, since it
actually describes the functionality and doesn't have a completely
different and more common usage in argument lists.

Here's a little example of what an Edebug spec would look like with
&repeat in place of &rest:

(defmacro msgmac (&rest args)
  (declare (debug ("start" [&repeat "middle"] "end")))
  `(message "%s" ',args))

(defun use-msgmac ()
  (msgmac start end)
  (msgmac start middle end)
  (msgmac start middle middle end))

Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of adding &repeat as a synonym
for &rest in Edebug specs, with the goal of moving &rest towards
obsolescence eventually?

Message #8 received at 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net>
To: Gemini Lasswell <gazally <at> runbox.com>
Cc: 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 20:54:22 -0400

Gemini Lasswell <gazally <at> runbox.com> writes:

> The symbol &rest in an Edebug spec has a different meaning than it has
> in an argument list. In particular, "&rest body" in an Edebug spec is
> erroneous usage because it is asking Edebug to match something that
> can match nothing (body) as many times as it can, which makes an
> infinite loop.

> Here are the macros I've found that have this incorrect usage of &rest
> in their Edebug specs:
>
> crm--completion-command
> easy-mmode-define-navigation
> inline--letlisteval
> inline--leteval
> ses--letref

> Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of adding &repeat as a synonym
> for &rest in Edebug specs, with the goal of moving &rest towards
> obsolescence eventually?

Makes sense to me, edebug specs can get pretty complicated.  Anything
which makes silly errors less likely is a win.

I wonder if would be worth trying to catch '&rest body' specs earlier
(ideally at compile time)?

Message #11 received at 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Gemini Lasswell <gazally <at> runbox.com>
Cc: 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:45:40 +0200

Gemini Lasswell <gazally <at> runbox.com> writes:

> The symbol &rest in an Edebug spec has a different meaning than it has
> in an argument list. In particular, "&rest body" in an Edebug spec is
> erroneous usage because it is asking Edebug to match something that
> can match nothing (body) as many times as it can, which makes an
> infinite loop.

[...]

> Here are the macros I've found that have this incorrect usage of &rest
> in their Edebug specs:
>
> crm--completion-command
> easy-mmode-define-navigation
> inline--letlisteval
> inline--leteval
> ses--letref

I've now fixed these.

> Edebug specs have been using &rest for a really long time and it
> mostly gets used correctly. But &repeat would be better, since it
> actually describes the functionality and doesn't have a completely
> different and more common usage in argument lists.
>
> Here's a little example of what an Edebug spec would look like with
> &repeat in place of &rest:
>
> (defmacro msgmac (&rest args)
>   (declare (debug ("start" [&repeat "middle"] "end")))
>   `(message "%s" ',args))
>
> (defun use-msgmac ()
>   (msgmac start end)
>   (msgmac start middle end)
>   (msgmac start middle middle end))
>
> Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of adding &repeat as a synonym
> for &rest in Edebug specs, with the goal of moving &rest towards
> obsolescence eventually?

I agree that this would be a lot clearer and probably less error-prone
than &rest.

Does anybody have an opinion here?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #14 received at 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: gazally <at> runbox.com, 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 23:12:08 -0400

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > > The symbol &rest in an Edebug spec has a different meaning than it has
  > > in an argument list.

That seems like a confusing wrinkle.  Could we possibly change Emacs
to smooth it out?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Message #17 received at 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
Cc: gazally <at> runbox.com, 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 05:35:14 +0200

Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org> writes:

>   > > The symbol &rest in an Edebug spec has a different meaning than it has
>   > > in an argument list.
>
> That seems like a confusing wrinkle.  Could we possibly change Emacs
> to smooth it out?

Yes, the suggestion was to make &repeat a synonym for &rest and then
replace all the usages.

I'm not sure this is worth the code churn, though -- as was pointed out,
virtually all the debug specs gets this right anyway.  Does anybody have
an opinion?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #20 received at 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: gazally <at> runbox.com, 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:14:33 -0400

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > I'm not sure this is worth the code churn, though -- as was pointed out,
  > virtually all the debug specs gets this right anyway.  Does anybody have
  > an opinion?

The benefit would be to simplify the specs for Edebug specs.

The cost would be to fix the existing ones -- if they would need changing.
Would any existing correct ones need changing?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Message #23 received at 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
Cc: gazally <at> runbox.com, 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 10:20:28 +0200

Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org> writes:

>   > I'm not sure this is worth the code churn, though -- as was pointed out,
>   > virtually all the debug specs gets this right anyway.  Does anybody have
>   > an opinion?
>
> The benefit would be to simplify the specs for Edebug specs.
>
> The cost would be to fix the existing ones -- if they would need changing.
> Would any existing correct ones need changing?

They wouldn't need changing, but it'd be confusing (for people reading
the code) to have some specs with &repeat and some with &rest, so I
think we should change them all if we decide to introduce the &repeat
alias.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #26 received at 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: Gemini Lasswell <gazally <at> runbox.com>, 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 16:02:07 +0200

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> I agree that this would be a lot clearer and probably less error-prone
> than &rest.
>
> Does anybody have an opinion here?

It could be worth changing it.  There are a lot of things where
understanding Edebug specs gets complicated.  Anything to make things
clearer is good.

Michael.

Message #29 received at 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Gemini Lasswell <gazally <at> runbox.com>
Cc: 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 16:56:03 +0100

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

>> Here's a little example of what an Edebug spec would look like with
>> &repeat in place of &rest:
>>
>> (defmacro msgmac (&rest args)
>>   (declare (debug ("start" [&repeat "middle"] "end")))
>>   `(message "%s" ',args))
>>
>> (defun use-msgmac ()
>>   (msgmac start end)
>>   (msgmac start middle end)
>>   (msgmac start middle middle end))
>>
>> Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of adding &repeat as a synonym
>> for &rest in Edebug specs, with the goal of moving &rest towards
>> obsolescence eventually?
>
> I agree that this would be a lot clearer and probably less error-prone
> than &rest.
>
> Does anybody have an opinion here?

Stefan added to the CCs; perhaps he has an opinion.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #32 received at 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Gemini Lasswell <gazally <at> runbox.com>
Cc: 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 18:25:55 -0500

> The symbol &rest in an Edebug spec has a different meaning than it has
> in an argument list.

Definitely, yes.
Note that `&optional` is different "in the same way".

> In particular, "&rest body" in an Edebug spec is
> erroneous usage because it is asking Edebug to match something that
> can match nothing (body) as many times as it can, which makes an
> infinite loop.

Only idiots would get caught making such rookie mistakes.

> Here are the macros I've found that have this incorrect usage of &rest
> in their Edebug specs:
>
> crm--completion-command
> easy-mmode-define-navigation
> inline--letlisteval
> inline--leteval
> ses--letref

See: only idiots.

> Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of adding &repeat as a synonym
> for &rest in Edebug specs, with the goal of moving &rest towards
> obsolescence eventually?

I like the idea.  Only problem I can see is that it doesn't
solve the problem for `&optional`.


        Stefan

Message #35 received at 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Gemini Lasswell <gazally <at> runbox.com>
Cc: 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 03:21:34 +0100

Stefan Monnier via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of
text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of adding &repeat as a synonym
>> for &rest in Edebug specs, with the goal of moving &rest towards
>> obsolescence eventually?
>
> I like the idea.  Only problem I can see is that it doesn't
> solve the problem for `&optional`.

I guess it could also lead to problems in third-party packages that use
the edebug specs themselves -- they expect symbols tagged up with &rest
and get &repeat instead, breaking their code.

I'm not sure how serious a problem that is, though.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #38 received at 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: Gemini Lasswell <gazally <at> runbox.com>, 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:30:35 -0500

> I guess it could also lead to problems in third-party packages that use
> the edebug specs themselves -- they expect symbols tagged up with &rest
> and get &repeat instead, breaking their code.
> I'm not sure how serious a problem that is, though.

I'm not too worried about that.
[ And if we're wrong, it'd let us learn about uses of edebug specs of
  which we're not aware.  ]


        Stefan

Message #41 received at 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Gemini Lasswell <gazally <at> runbox.com>, 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 03:35:02 +0100

Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> I'm not too worried about that.
> [ And if we're wrong, it'd let us learn about uses of edebug specs of
>   which we're not aware.  ]

It's hard to grep for, but there's a usage in pp.el, at least, so it's
used outside of the edebug machinery.  

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #44 received at 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: Gemini Lasswell <gazally <at> runbox.com>, 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:44:32 -0500

Lars Ingebrigtsen [2022-01-31 03:35:02] wrote:
> Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>> I'm not too worried about that.
>> [ And if we're wrong, it'd let us learn about uses of edebug specs of
>>   which we're not aware.  ]
> It's hard to grep for, but there's a usage in pp.el, at least, so it's
> used outside of the edebug machinery.

Yes, but it hardly qualifies for "of which we're not aware" ;-)


        Stefan

Message #47 received at 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Gemini Lasswell <gazally <at> runbox.com>, 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 04:00:50 +0100

Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> It's hard to grep for, but there's a usage in pp.el, at least, so it's
>> used outside of the edebug machinery.
>
> Yes, but it hardly qualifies for "of which we're not aware" ;-)

No, but if one weirdo's made use of the specs, then there's probably
more out there.

Your point about &optional also makes me lean towards not doing anything
here -- I mean, "&optional body" and "&rest body" are both likely in
edebug specs, and the confusion here more stems from `body' in itself
being nullable, I think?

So I dunno whether renaming &rest to &repeat is going to help people
that write debug specs in practice much.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #50 received at 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: gazally <at> runbox.com, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 00:03:57 -0500

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Resent-From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
  > Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
  > Resent-Sender: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org
  > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
  > Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 16:56:03 +0100
  > Message-ID: <87o83u8rjg.fsf <at> gnus.org>

  > >> Here's a little example of what an Edebug spec would look like with
  > >> &repeat in place of &rest:
  > >>
  > >> (defmacro msgmac (&rest args)
  > >>   (declare (debug ("start" [&repeat "middle"] "end")))
  > >>   `(message "%s" ',args))
  > >>
  > >> (defun use-msgmac ()
  > >>   (msgmac start end)
  > >>   (msgmac start middle end)
  > >>   (msgmac start middle middle end))
  > >>
  > >> Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of adding &repeat as a synonym
  > >> for &rest in Edebug specs, with the goal of moving &rest towards
  > >> obsolescence eventually?

  ...

  > Stefan added to the CCs; perhaps he has an opinion.

It looks like this makes usage more complex, and the change would be
incompatible.  That is two reasons not to make the change.  Does it
offer any benefit?

The message I am replying to is clearly not the start of the thread,
but I can't find the earlier ones.  I searched my inboxes back to Oct 11.
It looks like somehow I did not receive them.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Message #53 received at 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Gemini Lasswell <gazally <at> runbox.com>, 28747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#28747: 26.0.60; Usage of "&rest body" in Edebug specs
Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 10:49:00 +0200

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> Your point about &optional also makes me lean towards not doing anything
> here -- I mean, "&optional body" and "&rest body" are both likely in
> edebug specs, and the confusion here more stems from `body' in itself
> being nullable, I think?
>
> So I dunno whether renaming &rest to &repeat is going to help people
> that write debug specs in practice much.

I think the conclusion here is that we should probably let sleeping dogs
doze, so I'm closing this bug report.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.