Re: [PATCH] bad table formula recorded in some cases

[Timothy <tecosaur@gmail.com>]

Hi Thierry,

tbanelwebmin <tbanelwebmin@free.fr> writes:
> I don't know the intention. But the answer may lie in the comment 4
> lines above:
>    ;; Don't overwrite TBLFM, we might use text properties to
>    ;; store stuff.
>
> In this case, the intention would be to keep the original "#+TBLFM:"
> instead of inserting a fresh new one.
>
> But we are in the else branch of (if (looking-at ...)), which means
> there was no "#+TBLFM:". And no text properties to save. Therefore we
> may safely remove this (match-string 2).

Thank you for looking into this, I'm reassured by your inference that
this change is safe to make. I'm not really one of the main
contribution-acceptors/pushers though, so I'd rather leave this for
someone like Nicolas to sign off on.

Would you mind bumping this thread in a few weeks if nothing happens?

Hope that's not too much of an inconvenience,

Timothy.

> Le 21/07/2021 à 12:50, Timothy a écrit :
>> Hi Thierry,
>>
>> Thanks for this! Looking at the change you suggest, do you know why the
>> (match-string 2) bit might have been added in the first place? I'm just
>> wondering if there might be some edge-case adversely affected by this ---
>> hence trading one bug for another :P
>>
>> --
>> Timothy
>>
>> tbanelwebmin <tbanelwebmin@free.fr> writes:
>>
>>> Small bug, small fix.
>>>
>>> Suppose we have a table embedded in a begin-end block.
>>>
>>> #+begin: aaa :param value
>>> | a | b |
>>> | a | b |
>>> #+end:
>>>
>>> Suppose we want to add a formula, with C-c =
>>> We end up with an incorrect result:
>>>
>>> #+begin: aaa :param value
>>> | a | 33 |
>>> | a |  b |
>>>  :param value $2=33
>>> #+end:
>>>
>>> The fix: in org-table.el, line 2177, change
>>>   (insert (or (match-string 2) "#+TBLFM:")))
>>> to
>>>   (insert "#+TBLFM:"))
>>>
>>> Then we get the correct result:
>>>
>>> #+begin: aaa :param value
>>> | a | 33 |
>>> | a |  b |
>>> #+TBLFM: $2=33
>>> #+end:
>>>
>>> Why? Because (match-string 2) is supposed to refer to the (looking-at)
>>> instruction 7 lines above. But (match-string 2) is in the else branch,
>>> which means that (looking-at) failed. Therefore (match-string 2) returns
>>> garbage.
>>>
>>> Thanks to Uwe Brauer for pointing to this bug.