[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: question about narrowed behavior of next-property-change et al.
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: question about narrowed behavior of next-property-change et al. |
Date: |
Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:06:06 -0500 |
I did a grep for "{next,prev}{,-single}-property-change" (which I think is
the set of functions effect), and there are over 200 occurances (most of
which are actually the `-single' variants). This seems enough that doing
any
kind of thorough check is a fair burden, and I really don't think it's worth
the time.
I think you can check them all in an hour. Why not?
- question about narrowed behavior of next-property-change et al., Miles Bader, 2003/01/23
- Re: question about narrowed behavior of next-property-change et al., Stefan Monnier, 2003/01/23
- Re: question about narrowed behavior of next-property-change et al., Richard Stallman, 2003/01/24
- Re: question about narrowed behavior of next-property-change et al., Miles Bader, 2003/01/24
- Re: question about narrowed behavior of next-property-change et al., Richard Stallman, 2003/01/25
- Re: question about narrowed behavior of next-property-change et al., Stefan Monnier, 2003/01/25
- Re: question about narrowed behavior of next-property-change et al., Richard Stallman, 2003/01/26
- Re: question about narrowed behavior of next-property-change et al., Stefan Monnier, 2003/01/27
- Re: question about narrowed behavior of next-property-change et al., Miles Bader, 2003/01/27
- Re: question about narrowed behavior of next-property-change et al.,
Richard Stallman <=