On Sat Oct 15 2011 Leo wrote:
> I think bbdb-annotate-record is now broken.
>
> Set bbdb-auto-notes-rules to value:
>
> '(("Organization" (".+" organization "\\&" t)))
>
> and bbdb-annotate-record will put a string value into the organization
> field of the record, which accepts only lists.
Have you tried it?
-- Well it's certainly not broken in the sense that previously it
was never possible what you are trying to do here. Only note fields
could be anontated, which the organization field is not.
But you are right. The changes in the code were partially motivated
by the idea to make it possible what you want to do here.
But does it fail? It's a bit of a hack: This particular merge is
done by bbdb-merge-lists. If its args are not lists they are (now)
replaced by lists. (Organization headers are too rare. So I never
tested this code.)
I implemented this kind of at the end of a day that was too long. A
cleaner solution is probably to make bbdb-annotate-record a bit
smarter so that it knows how to annotate different fields. Then it
could even throw an error when you try to push annotations beyond
the limits that are currently implemented. (For address and phone
fields all this is obviously useless.)
Roland
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definitive record of customers, application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct
_______________________________________________
bbdb-info@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bbdb-info
BBDB Home Page: http://bbdb.sourceforge.net/
