[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "M-x locate" regression
From: |
Richard M. Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: "M-x locate" regression |
Date: |
Wed, 09 Nov 2005 21:08:48 -0500 |
I do not immediately understand. Nick is proposing to revert the 1998
change and do essentially nothing else, so any problem the 1998 change
The patch in Nick's message includes another change in another place.
It looked like that other change was intended to update files correctly
in both kinds of buffers, but I did not study it. What is that other
change supposed to do?
Anyway, it looks like the purpose of my 1998 change was to prevent
find-dired buffers from being in the dired-buffers list. Reverting it
would put those buffers into dired-buffers. Is that a problem?
The way to find out is to find all the places that refer to
dired-buffers, so you can see what the effects of this change would
be. If you make each of those places DTRT when a find-dired buffer is
in the list, then it is ok for find-dired buffers to be in the list.
- Re: "M-x locate" regression, (continued)
- Re: "M-x locate" regression, Nick Roberts, 2005/11/08
- Re: "M-x locate" regression, Luc Teirlinck, 2005/11/08
- Re: "M-x locate" regression, Nick Roberts, 2005/11/08
- Re: "M-x locate" regression, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/11/08
- Re: "M-x locate" regression, Luc Teirlinck, 2005/11/08
- Re: "M-x locate" regression, Nick Roberts, 2005/11/09
- Re: "M-x locate" regression, Luc Teirlinck, 2005/11/09
- Re: "M-x locate" regression, Nick Roberts, 2005/11/09
- Re: "M-x locate" regression, Luc Teirlinck, 2005/11/10
- Re: "M-x locate" regression, Luc Teirlinck, 2005/11/10
- Re: "M-x locate" regression,
Richard M. Stallman <=
- Re: "M-x locate" regression, Luc Teirlinck, 2005/11/09
- Re: "M-x locate" regression, Nick Roberts, 2005/11/09
Re: "M-x locate" regression, Luc Teirlinck, 2005/11/06