bug#29048: 26.0.90; [PATCH] Improve documentation on Edebug and macros

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bug#29048: 26.0.90; [PATCH] Improve documentation on Edebug and macros

Gemini Lasswell
Here are a few suggestions to try to make that dense section of the
manual on Edebug and macros a little clearer.

I'd like to remove mention of eval-when-compile from the explanation
of how to make sure macro specifications are available, because it's
not the only way to get yourself in that situation. If you navigate to
a function in a file that's not yet loaded which uses a macro in a
different file required by the first file and also not yet loaded, and
C-u C-M-x, Edebug will complain due to the lack of macro spec
regardless of whether the never-executed require in the first file was
wrapped with eval-when-compile.



From 648f33d68218ac89d941eb78aa6f6d2934e6f97e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Gemini Lasswell <[hidden email]>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 13:47:15 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Improve documentation of Edebug and macros

* doc/lispref/edebug.texi (Instrumenting Macro Calls): Refer to
`require' instead of `eval-when-compile' in discussion of loading
macro specifications before instrumenting.
(Specification List): Clarify what "defining form" means to Edebug
and when `def-form' or `def-body' should be used instead of `form'
or `body'.
---
 doc/lispref/edebug.texi | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/lispref/edebug.texi b/doc/lispref/edebug.texi
index cebf0a3af3..e1c1e26bc5 100644
--- a/doc/lispref/edebug.texi
+++ b/doc/lispref/edebug.texi
@@ -1144,9 +1144,10 @@ Instrumenting Macro Calls
 @c automatically load the entire source file containing the function
 @c being instrumented.  That would avoid this.
   Take care to ensure that the specifications are known to Edebug when
-you instrument code.  If you are instrumenting a function from a file
-that uses @code{eval-when-compile} to require another file containing
-macro definitions, you may need to explicitly load that file.
+you instrument code.  If you are instrumenting a function which uses a
+macro defined in another file, you may first need to either evaluate
+the @code{require} forms in the file containing your function, or
+explicitly load the file containing the macro.
 
   You can also define an edebug specification for a macro separately
 from the macro definition with @code{def-edebug-spec}.  Adding
@@ -1231,13 +1232,17 @@ Specification List
 @c an "expression" is not necessarily intended for evaluation.
 
 @item form
-A single evaluated expression, which is instrumented.
+A single evaluated expression, which is instrumented.  If your macro
+wraps the expression with @code{lambda} before it is evaluated, use
+@code{def-form} instead.  See @code{def-form} below.
 
 @item place
 A generalized variable.  @xref{Generalized Variables}.
 
 @item body
-Short for @code{&rest form}.  See @code{&rest} below.
+Short for @code{&rest form}.  See @code{&rest} below.  If your macro
+wraps its body of code with @code{lambda} before it is evaluated, use
+@code{def-body} instead.  See @code{def-body} below.
 
 @item function-form
 A function form: either a quoted function symbol, a quoted lambda
@@ -1292,11 +1297,16 @@ Specification List
 
 @item &define
 @c @kindex &define @r{(Edebug)}
-Indicates that the specification is for a defining form.  The defining
-form itself is not instrumented (that is, Edebug does not stop before and
-after the defining form), but forms inside it typically will be
-instrumented.  The @code{&define} keyword should be the first element in
-a list specification.
+
+Indicates that the specification is for a defining form.  Edebug's
+definition of a defining form is a form containing one or more code
+forms which are saved and executed later, after the execution of the
+defining form.
+
+The defining form itself is not instrumented (that is, Edebug does not
+stop before and after the defining form), but forms inside it
+typically will be instrumented.  The @code{&define} keyword should be
+the first element in a list specification.
 
 @item nil
 This is successful when there are no more arguments to match at the
--
2.14.2

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bug#29048: 26.0.90; [PATCH] Improve documentation on Edebug and macros

Eli Zaretskii
> From: Gemini Lasswell <[hidden email]>
> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 18:01:43 -0700
>
> Here are a few suggestions to try to make that dense section of the
> manual on Edebug and macros a little clearer.

Thanks, this is okay for the release branch.

> I'd like to remove mention of eval-when-compile from the explanation
> of how to make sure macro specifications are available, because it's
> not the only way to get yourself in that situation. If you navigate to
> a function in a file that's not yet loaded which uses a macro in a
> different file required by the first file and also not yet loaded, and
> C-u C-M-x, Edebug will complain due to the lack of macro spec
> regardless of whether the never-executed require in the first file was
> wrapped with eval-when-compile.

That's okay, but please mention eval-when-compile as an example of the
broader class of situations with instrumenting code wrapped with
macros.

> * doc/lispref/edebug.texi (Instrumenting Macro Calls): Refer to
> `require' instead of `eval-when-compile' in discussion of loading
> macro specifications before instrumenting.

In log entries and in NEWS, we use quoting 'like this' nowadays, not
`like this'.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bug#29048: 26.0.90; [PATCH] Improve documentation on Edebug and macros

Gemini Lasswell-2
Eli Zaretskii <[hidden email]> writes:

> That's okay, but please mention eval-when-compile as an example of the
> broader class of situations with instrumenting code wrapped with
> macros.

OK, here's a revised version.


From 4213f586b8207bc0529c664ada005bfc61acfa08 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Gemini Lasswell <[hidden email]>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 13:47:15 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Improve documentation of Edebug and macros

* doc/lispref/edebug.texi (Instrumenting Macro Calls): Improve
discussion of when it might be necessary to find and evaluate macro
specifications before instrumenting.
(Specification List): Clarify what "defining form" means to Edebug
and when 'def-form' or 'def-body' should be used instead of 'form'
or 'body'.
---
 doc/lispref/edebug.texi | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/lispref/edebug.texi b/doc/lispref/edebug.texi
index cebf0a3af3..62fd9f38cb 100644
--- a/doc/lispref/edebug.texi
+++ b/doc/lispref/edebug.texi
@@ -1144,9 +1144,12 @@ Instrumenting Macro Calls
 @c automatically load the entire source file containing the function
 @c being instrumented.  That would avoid this.
   Take care to ensure that the specifications are known to Edebug when
-you instrument code.  If you are instrumenting a function from a file
-that uses @code{eval-when-compile} to require another file containing
-macro definitions, you may need to explicitly load that file.
+you instrument code.  If you are instrumenting a function which uses a
+macro defined in another file, you may first need to either evaluate
+the @code{require} forms in the file containing your function, or
+explicitly load the file containing the macro.  If the definition of a
+macro is wrapped by @code{eval-when-compile}, you may need to evaluate
+it.
 
   You can also define an edebug specification for a macro separately
 from the macro definition with @code{def-edebug-spec}.  Adding
@@ -1231,13 +1234,17 @@ Specification List
 @c an "expression" is not necessarily intended for evaluation.
 
 @item form
-A single evaluated expression, which is instrumented.
+A single evaluated expression, which is instrumented.  If your macro
+wraps the expression with @code{lambda} before it is evaluated, use
+@code{def-form} instead.  See @code{def-form} below.
 
 @item place
 A generalized variable.  @xref{Generalized Variables}.
 
 @item body
-Short for @code{&rest form}.  See @code{&rest} below.
+Short for @code{&rest form}.  See @code{&rest} below.  If your macro
+wraps its body of code with @code{lambda} before it is evaluated, use
+@code{def-body} instead.  See @code{def-body} below.
 
 @item function-form
 A function form: either a quoted function symbol, a quoted lambda
@@ -1292,11 +1299,16 @@ Specification List
 
 @item &define
 @c @kindex &define @r{(Edebug)}
-Indicates that the specification is for a defining form.  The defining
-form itself is not instrumented (that is, Edebug does not stop before and
-after the defining form), but forms inside it typically will be
-instrumented.  The @code{&define} keyword should be the first element in
-a list specification.
+
+Indicates that the specification is for a defining form.  Edebug's
+definition of a defining form is a form containing one or more code
+forms which are saved and executed later, after the execution of the
+defining form.
+
+The defining form itself is not instrumented (that is, Edebug does not
+stop before and after the defining form), but forms inside it
+typically will be instrumented.  The @code{&define} keyword should be
+the first element in a list specification.
 
 @item nil
 This is successful when there are no more arguments to match at the
--
2.14.3

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bug#29048: 26.0.90; [PATCH] Improve documentation on Edebug and macros

Eli Zaretskii
> From: Gemini Lasswell <[hidden email]>
> Cc: Gemini Lasswell <[hidden email]>,  [hidden email]
> Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 09:43:01 -0800
>
> Eli Zaretskii <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> > That's okay, but please mention eval-when-compile as an example of the
> > broader class of situations with instrumenting code wrapped with
> > macros.
>
> OK, here's a revised version.

OK, thanks.  This is good to go.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bug#29048: 26.0.90; [PATCH] Improve documentation on Edebug and macros

Gemini Lasswell
Eli Zaretskii <[hidden email]> writes:

> OK, thanks.  This is good to go.

I've pushed this to emacs-26.