From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17560: 24.4.50; wrong type argument if rmail-delete-after-output set Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 09:54:51 +0300 Message-ID: <83ha4fll8k.fsf@gnu.org> References: Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1400914526 9890 80.91.229.3 (24 May 2014 06:55:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 06:55:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 17560@debbugs.gnu.org To: Ken Olum Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 24 08:55:19 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Wo5rS-00044v-Eb for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 24 May 2014 08:55:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46968 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wo5rR-0007Ec-Mc for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 24 May 2014 02:55:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53538) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wo5rJ-0007BY-7v for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 May 2014 02:55:14 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wo5rD-0005qU-Sf for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 May 2014 02:55:09 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:59704) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wo5rD-0005pu-Or for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 May 2014 02:55:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wo5rC-0000Mz-Qm for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 May 2014 02:55:03 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 06:55:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17560 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 17560-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17560.14009144861382 (code B ref 17560); Sat, 24 May 2014 06:55:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17560) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 May 2014 06:54:46 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58581 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wo5qv-0000MD-7T for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 24 May 2014 02:54:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:65239) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wo5qr-0000Lt-Ce for 17560@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 24 May 2014 02:54:42 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N6200600G6JK200@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for 17560@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 24 May 2014 09:54:33 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N62006KJGIXDTA0@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sat, 24 May 2014 09:54:33 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:89441 Archived-At: > From: Ken Olum > Cc: 17560@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 16:04:56 -0400 > > What I meant was that you cannot say (rmail-next-message) to go forward > one message. You have to say (rmail-next-message 1). So I wasn't sure > whether it would be a good idea to allow (rmail-delete-forward) to > default to deleting one message. > > On the other hand, I now see that rmail-search has a repeat count that > is optional. I see. So that was my misunderstanding, and it is better to go with your first alternative, since it is backward-compatible, and requires less changes. Again, sorry for not bringing this up earlier.