>From my previous message: In as far as `locate-in-alternate-database' is concerned, I can not test this function since it only works for GNU locate and I have slocate installed. Since the docstring does not mention a prefix arg, I am not even sure that this function can handle one at all.
So the currently committed patch does not pass the arg along. IF somebody would be able to check that the following patch works OK in the four combinatorial cases (prefix arg vs no prefix arg, `locate-prompt-for-command' nil vs t), one could commit the patch below Thinking more about this, I now believe that a numeric arg to this function makes little sense, even assuming that it _would_ work OK, nor does using this function at all with `locate-prompt-for-command' set to t make much sense. This function is nothing more than an interface for specifying the `d' option. If you want to specify the exact command line given to locate, then you can quite as well specify the `-d' option right then. This is actually more convenient than specifying the database at a separate prompt. Moreover, if you specify the `-d' option explicitly, `g' will work correctly, whereas if you use `locate-in-alternate-database', it probably will not. So I do not believe that there is any need to test the patch for `locate-in-alternate-database' which I proposed. I believe that it is better to just forget about that patch. Sincerely, Luc Teirlinck. _______________________________________________ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
