bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#2805: marked as done (23.0.90; why is minibuffer-default-add-complet


From: Emacs bug Tracking System
Subject: bug#2805: marked as done (23.0.90; why is minibuffer-default-add-completions a command?)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:25:03 +0000

Your message dated Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:19:09 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#2805: 23.0.90; why is 
minibuffer-default-add-completions a command?
has caused the Emacs bug report #2805,
regarding 23.0.90; why is minibuffer-default-add-completions a command?
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact address@hidden
immediately.)


-- 
2805: http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=2805
Emacs Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: 23.0.90; why is minibuffer-default-add-completions a command? Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:22:36 -0700
emacs -Q
 
Should `minibuffer-default-add-completions' really be an
interactive function? I don't see where that feature is
used anywhere.
 

In GNU Emacs 23.0.90.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2009-02-01 on SOFT-MJASON
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (3.4)'





--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#2805: 23.0.90; why is minibuffer-default-add-completions a command? Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:19:09 +0200 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.91 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
>>> Should `minibuffer-default-add-completions' really be an
>>> interactive function? I don't see where that feature is
>>> used anywhere.
>
>> Hmm, I don't remember why it was implemented as interactive.
>> But now I see no reason why it should be interactive.
>
> It may have been convenient when testing it.  Please remove the
> (interactive) thingy.

Done.

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]