GNU bug report logs - #65270
30.0.50; `describe-function' issue with some methods

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 65270 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 65270 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: David Ponce <da_vid <at> orange.fr>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 30.0.50; `describe-function' issue with some methods
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 12:36:25 +0200

Hello,

It seems there is an issue with `describe-function' of a method that
calls `cl-call-next-method'.  For a such method `describe-function' says
that the method is "Undocumented" even if a doc string is present.

Also the mentioned signature is weird.  See an illustration below using
a simple recipe, running 'emacs -Q'.

Thanks!

<1> In scratch buffer eval:
===========================
*scratch*
------------------------------------------------------------------
(cl-defgeneric foo (arg)
  "Generic foo receiving any ARG."
  (format "%S" arg))
foo

(cl-defmethod foo ((arg atom))
  "Specialized foo receiving any atoms."
  (format "atom %s" (cl-call-next-method)))
foo

(cl-defmethod foo ((arg string))
  "Specialized foo receiving strings."
  (format "string %S" arg))
foo

;; Check results are correct
(foo 1)
"atom 1"
(foo '(1))
"(1)"
(foo "1")
"string \"1\""
------------------------------------------------------------------

<2> M-x describe-function RET foo RET
=====================================
*Help* (is not correct for the method using `cl-call-next-method')
------------------------------------------------------------------
foo is a byte-compiled Lisp function.

(foo ARG)

Generic foo receiving any ARG.

  Probably introduced at or before Emacs version 1.2.


This is a generic function.

Implementations:

(foo (ARG string))
Specialized foo receiving strings.

(foo (ARG0 atom) &rest CL--ARGS) <<<<<<<<<<<<< Incorrect
Undocumented

(foo ARG)
Undocumented
------------------------------------------------------------------


<3> In scratch buffer eval:
===========================
*scratch*
------------------------------------------------------------------
;; Redefine method without calling `cl-call-next-method'
(cl-defmethod foo ((arg atom))
  "Specialized foo receiving any atoms."
  (format "atom %S" arg))
foo

;; Check results are correct
(foo 1)
"atom 1"
(foo '(1))
"(1)"
(foo "1")
"string \"1\""
------------------------------------------------------------------

<4> M-x describe-function RET foo RET
=====================================
*Help* (is correct)
------------------------------------------------------------------
foo is a byte-compiled Lisp function.

(foo ARG)

Generic foo receiving any ARG.

  Probably introduced at or before Emacs version 1.2.


This is a generic function.

Implementations:

(foo (ARG string))
Specialized foo receiving strings.

(foo (ARG atom)) <<<<<<<<<<<<< Correct
Specialized foo receiving any atoms.

(foo ARG)
Undocumented
------------------------------------------------------------------

In GNU Emacs 30.0.50 (build 1, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version
 3.24.38, cairo version 1.17.8) of 2023-08-13
Repository revision: de6c1c4d5c92b92d5b280e157c2a5bc3228749f2
Repository branch: master
Windowing system distributor 'The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.12014000
System Description: Fedora Linux 38 (KDE Plasma)

Configured using:
 'configure --with-x-toolkit=gtk3
 --with-native-compilation=no'

Configured features:
ACL CAIRO DBUS FREETYPE GIF GLIB GMP GNUTLS GSETTINGS HARFBUZZ JPEG JSON
LCMS2 LIBOTF LIBSELINUX LIBSYSTEMD LIBXML2 M17N_FLT MODULES NOTIFY
INOTIFY PDUMPER PNG RSVG SECCOMP SOUND SQLITE3 THREADS TIFF
TOOLKIT_SCROLL_BARS TREE_SITTER WEBP X11 XDBE XIM XINPUT2 XPM GTK3 ZLIB

Important settings:
  value of $LC_TIME: fr_FR.utf8
  value of $LANG: fr_FR.UTF-8
  locale-coding-system: utf-8-unix

Message #8 received at 65270 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: David Ponce <da_vid <at> orange.fr>
To: 65270 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: 30.0.50; `describe-function' issue with some methods
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:41:17 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 13/08/2023 12:36, David Ponce wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> It seems there is an issue with `describe-function' of a method that
> calls `cl-call-next-method'.  For a such method `describe-function' says
> that the method is "Undocumented" even if a doc string is present.
> 
> Also the mentioned signature is weird.  See an illustration below using
> a simple recipe, running 'emacs -Q'.
> 
[...]

Hello,

The attached patch fixed for me the doc string issue with `describe-function'
for methods calling `cl-call-next-method'.

It would be nice if someone who better knows the cl-generic library will
double check it (CC Stefan, the author).

Unfortunately, I didn't find a solution for arguments.

Hope it will help.

Thanks

[cl-generic-docstring-1.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #11 received at 65270 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: David Ponce <da_vid <at> orange.fr>
To: 65270 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: 30.0.50; `describe-function' issue with some methods
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 00:04:43 +0200

On 14/08/2023 12:41, David Ponce wrote:
> On 13/08/2023 12:36, David Ponce wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> It seems there is an issue with `describe-function' of a method that
>> calls `cl-call-next-method'.  For a such method `describe-function' says
>> that the method is "Undocumented" even if a doc string is present.
>>
>> Also the mentioned signature is weird.  See an illustration below using
>> a simple recipe, running 'emacs -Q'.
>>
> [...]
> 
> Hello,
> 
> The attached patch fixed for me the doc string issue with `describe-function'
> for methods calling `cl-call-next-method'.
> 
> It would be nice if someone who better knows the cl-generic library will
> double check it (CC Stefan, the author).
> 
> Unfortunately, I didn't find a solution for arguments.
> 
> Hope it will help.
> 
> Thanks

Please forget my previous patch, it doesn't fix the issue in all cases.
Hopefully someone will find the proper fix.

Thanks
 

Message #14 received at 65270 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: David Ponce <da_vid <at> orange.fr>
Cc: 65270 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65270: 30.0.50; `describe-function' issue with some methods
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 22:40:27 -0400

> It seems there is an issue with `describe-function' of a method that
> calls `cl-call-next-method'.  For a such method `describe-function' says
> that the method is "Undocumented" even if a doc string is present.

I pushed a patch to `master` which seems to fix this problem.

> Also the mentioned signature is weird.  See an illustration below using
> a simple recipe, running 'emacs -Q'.

I think we still have a problem here when the method is not
byte-compiled, but I think the problem is in `help-function-arglist`
which decides to use the "raw arglist" from the interpreted closure
without looking at the arg names stashed in the docstring.


        Stefan

Message #17 received at 65270 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: David Ponce <da_vid <at> orange.fr>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 65270 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65270: 30.0.50; `describe-function' issue with some methods
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 11:09:00 +0200

On 15/08/2023 04:40, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> It seems there is an issue with `describe-function' of a method that
>> calls `cl-call-next-method'.  For a such method `describe-function' says
>> that the method is "Undocumented" even if a doc string is present.
> 
> I pushed a patch to `master` which seems to fix this problem.
> 
>> Also the mentioned signature is weird.  See an illustration below using
>> a simple recipe, running 'emacs -Q'.
> 
> I think we still have a problem here when the method is not
> byte-compiled, but I think the problem is in `help-function-arglist`
> which decides to use the "raw arglist" from the interpreted closure
> without looking at the arg names stashed in the docstring.
> 
> 
>          Stefan
> 

Hello Stefan,

I confirm that your patch fixed the issue with doc string, and with
arglist of byte-compiled methods (which is probably the common case).

Thank you very much!

Message #22 received at 65270-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: David Ponce <da_vid <at> orange.fr>
Cc: 65270-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#65270: 30.0.50; `describe-function' issue with some methods
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 05:24:43 -0700

Version: 30.1

David Ponce <da_vid <at> orange.fr> writes:

> On 15/08/2023 04:40, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> It seems there is an issue with `describe-function' of a method that
>>> calls `cl-call-next-method'.  For a such method `describe-function' says
>>> that the method is "Undocumented" even if a doc string is present.
>> I pushed a patch to `master` which seems to fix this problem.
>>
>>> Also the mentioned signature is weird.  See an illustration below using
>>> a simple recipe, running 'emacs -Q'.
>> I think we still have a problem here when the method is not
>> byte-compiled, but I think the problem is in `help-function-arglist`
>> which decides to use the "raw arglist" from the interpreted closure
>> without looking at the arg names stashed in the docstring.
>>          Stefan
>>
>
> Hello Stefan,
>
> I confirm that your patch fixed the issue with doc string, and with
> arglist of byte-compiled methods (which is probably the common case).
>
> Thank you very much!

It seems like this issue was fixed, but it was left open in the bug
tracker.  I'm therefore closing it now.

Previous Next

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