I said
> [1] ((and bbdb-quiet-about-name-mismatches old-name)
> (message "name mismatch: \"%s\" changed to \"%s\""
> (bbdb-record-name record) name)
> (sit-for 1))
> [1] If bbdb-quiet-about-name-mismatches is set to t
> then... er. That should be (not bbdb-quiet-blah). That's going
> right into CVS now.
>
Doh. Someone slap me with a kipper for not spotting this sooner. In
the original code, when bbdb-quiet-about-name-mismatches was t, you'd
just get a message in the minibuf; the record didn't actually
change. When it's nil, you get prompted for changing the record and
for putting the old value in the AKA field (optionally). So in essence
the variable should've been bbdb-dont-ask-about-name-mismatches or
something. I've restored the original code so that it works the way
you'd probably expected, and left in the bbdb-silent-running fix so
that if bbdb-silent-running is set, you don't get the message.
On July 14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> name mismatch: "HarryIV Putnam" changed to "Harry Putnam"
>
This message will be suppressed by setting bbdb-silent-running to
t. As noted, it's not telling you that it changed the record; it's
simply mentioning that it noticed the change but didn't record it.
We apologize, as they say, for the inconvenience.
Cheers,
Waider.
--
Ronan Waide, Technology Consultant
StepStone, #102 Block 4, Harcourt Centre, Harcourt Rd, Dublin 2, Ireland
Tel: +353 (0)1 2944077 Fax: +353 (0)1 2944078 http://www.stepstone.ie/
_______________________________________________
bbdb-info mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/bbdb-info
