[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rationale for split-string?
From: |
Bill Wohler |
Subject: |
Re: Rationale for split-string? |
Date: |
Mon, 19 May 2003 20:11:51 -0700 |
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:
> A few I couldn't tell at all without doing a much deeper analysis of
> the code than I have time for right now:
>
> ./lisp/calendar/todo-mode.el:869: needs checking
> ./lisp/eshell/em-pred.el:601: needs checking
> ./lisp/mh-e/mh-utils.el:1606: needs checking
Thanks very much for checking. I believe that Satyaki has already fixed
this in CVS MH-E so that it would be compatible with present and future
versions of Emacs as well as XEmacs. Given our recent history, this
should find its way into CVS Emacs in a few weeks (in MH-E 7.4).
> ./lisp/mh-e/mh-alias.el:156: want OMIT-NULLS t
> ./lisp/mh-e/mh-alias.el:289: OK
> ./lisp/mh-e/mh-alias.el:469: OK
> ./lisp/mh-e/mh-comp.el:374: OK, double default
> ./lisp/mh-e/mh-e.el:2164: OK, double default
> ./lisp/mh-e/mh-index.el:475: OK, double default
> ./lisp/mh-e/mh-seq.el:966: OK, double default
> ./lisp/mh-e/mh-utils.el:1606: needs checking
--
Bill Wohler <address@hidden> http://www.newt.com/wohler/ GnuPG ID:610BD9AD
Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and MH-E. Vote Libertarian!
If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.