bug#41989: 28.0.50; Edebug doesn't generate symbols for `cl-flet' etc.

[Stefan Monnier]

>>> I'm not quite sure what the status is here now.  I tried `C-u C-M-x'-ing
>>> it now and got:
>>>
>>> Edebug: foo@cl-flet@118
>>> Edebug: foo@cl-flet@119
>>> Edebug: bar
>>> bar
>>>
>>> Which seems correct.  And stepping through the function also works.  So
>>> is there more to be done here?
>>
>> It would be nice to include the outer function ("bar") in the
>> generated symbol, e.g. "bar@foo@cl-flet@118" or similar.
>> But that would really be the icing on the cake, and it's not necessary
>> to avoid duplicate symbols. So more of a nice to have; feel free to
>> close this bug if it's too hard to implement.
>
> Ah, right.  Yes, that does sound like an even better way to name these
> flets -- easier to identify in backtraces and the like (but I guess
> normally the backtrace would also tell you the enclosing function, so
> perhaps the utility would be limited)...
>
> Perhaps Stefan M has an opinion here?  Added to the CCs.

[ I recently worked on this part of Edebug, which incidentally lead me
  to fix bug#41988.  ]

I think it wouldn't be very hard to add the outer function(s) name(s),
but it wouldn't remove the need for the "@NNN" to make the functions
unique.  Also I'm still not quite sure why those names matter, to be
honest, so the motivation to improve the behavior is fairly low.


        Stefan