Re: loaddefs.el on Windows incomplete

2005-12-19 Thread Ralf Angeli
* Eli Zaretskii (2005-12-18) writes: > However, I cannot accept your patch as it stands. First, you missed > the important WARNING in the comment just preceding the commands you > wanted to patch, Oh great, then I'll probably have to do another upload to alpha.gnu.org. At least because of the u

normal-mode breaks VM recover-file

2005-12-19 Thread mjchan . inbox
With latest CVS emasc I upgraded to last week, I found that VM would no longer be able to "recover-file" from an auto-saved copy properly. After further investigation, VM would not proceed with recovering because the major mode (VM mode) was reset to text-mode during the recovery in normal-mode (in

fill-paragraph differs with longlines-mode

2005-12-19 Thread Aaron S. Hawley
A traditional fill-paragraph capability is not available in longlines-mode, counter to what is advertised. Try starting a new buffer (in fundamental-mode) by running `C-x b foo RET', and then inserting the following indented line: * Occasionally, some bullet items are so long they wrap on to the

Links in Help buffer

2005-12-19 Thread Nick Roberts
If you do: 1) C-h f display-buffer 2) Click on pop-up-frames 3) Click on customize 4) Click on the [back] button in the Help buffer you get the error: apply: Symbol's function definition is void: nil This is because help-xref-stack has been set back to nil by clicking on customize: In help-

Re: loaddefs.el on Windows incomplete

2005-12-19 Thread Eli Zaretskii
> From: Ralf Angeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:23:37 +0100 > > * Eli Zaretskii (2005-12-18) writes: > > > However, I cannot accept your patch as it stands. First, you missed > > the important WARNING in the comment just preceding the commands

Re: Cannot modify directory list GTK file dialog

2005-12-19 Thread Jan D.
Stephen Berman wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:58:15 +0100 "Jan D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I can't reproduce it, with or without Gnome. Are you running Gnome? I mainly use KDE and was doing so when I posted the bug report. I now tried it with Gnome, and there it worked fine, both

Re: existing work on TODO items

2005-12-19 Thread Richard M. Stallman
You rejected multi-mode before, but I can't remember the details. Perhaps it was that there was supposed to be a feature freeze, though there clearly wasn't. Yes, there was. It wasn't 100%, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. Unfortunately, I don't remember what we decided about m

Re: loaddefs.el on Windows incomplete

2005-12-19 Thread Ralf Angeli
* Eli Zaretskii (2005-12-19) writes: >> From: Ralf Angeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Oh great, then I'll probably have to do another upload to >> alpha.gnu.org. > > Sorry, I'm confused: what upload to alpha.gnu? What did you upload > there, and how is this discussion relevant to whatever you uplo

Re: lazy-completion-table's args are evaluated too late

2005-12-19 Thread Richard M. Stallman
Is this correct? It seems to work right when I try it. (defmacro lazy-completion-table (var fun &rest args) "Initialize variable VAR as a lazy completion table. If the completion table VAR is used for the first time (e.g., by passing VAR as an argument to `try-completion'), the function FUN is

Re: normal-mode breaks VM recover-file

2005-12-19 Thread Richard M. Stallman
With latest CVS emasc I upgraded to last week, I found that VM would no longer be able to "recover-file" from an auto-saved copy properly. After further investigation, VM would not proceed with recovering because the major mode (VM mode) was reset to text-mode during the recover

Re: kill-rectangle counts incorrectly

2005-12-19 Thread Richard M. Stallman
When I now go forward (right) by one char, the cursor in deed steps forward by two columns (because of the way the ASCII NUL is displayed) -- and the rectangle which is killed now, is two characters wide and not one! That's a bug -- in my opinion. That is not a bug. ^

Re: lazy-completion-table's args are evaluated too late

2005-12-19 Thread Stefan Monnier
> Is this correct? It seems to work right when I try it. Looks like it works indeed, although it breaks my code because my code relies on lexical-let which doesn't work correctly when the lambdas are built at run time as is the case in your code. So maybe I'll be better off with the current code