Re: Inadequate coding in hack-elisp-shorthands

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Eli.

On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 08:51:18 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 20:35:17 +0000
> > From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>

> > In emacs -Q in the emacs-28 branch, create the following two line file,
> > foobar.el, and try to load it:

> > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> > (defvar foo-baz "foobar-baz")
> > FOOBARELISP-SHORTHANDS: (("foo" . "foobar")))
> > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

> > This will throw an error, but that isn't important.

> > What is important is that the symbol foobar-baz is created by the
> > elisp-shorthands facility.

> > This shouldn't happen since:
> > 1/- There is no Local Variables section.
> > 2/- There is no variable elisp-shorthands in that non-existent section.

> > The following errors are evident in hack-elisp-shorthands:
> > 1/- The code doesn't check for a correctly formatted Local Variables
> >   section.
> > 2/- The code, even if it did check, would only check the last 3000 bytes
> >   in the file.  The section can occur anywhere in the last 3000
> >   CHARACTERS.
> > 3/- The code doesn't do a case-sensitive search for "elisp-shorthands".
> > 4/- The code doesn't check for "elisp-shorthands" being a complete
> >   symbol.
> > 5/- The code doesn't even check that "elisp-shorthands" is in a comment.

> > I would suggest that these errors be corrected.  I would also suggest
> > that the entire code and documentation for this new facility be
> > carefully reviewed by somebody who isn't the original author.

> Thanks, but why isn't this a full-blown bug report, submitted to
> debbugs?

The last sentence - I was hoping to recruit somebody (somebody more
enthusiastic about the feature than me) to do the reviewing, and this is
more likely on emacs-devel than debbugs.

But I'll resubmit it as a bug this evening.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).