From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#8628: 24.0.50; `thing-at-point-bounds-of-list-at-point' - no good Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 16:39:52 -0700 Message-ID: <8F3C066C93F84F0CB6E730F074F75697@us.oracle.com> References: <5391FA6F599B415389A292EF4D6CC79B@us.oracle.com><87sjqiexsy.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87box5u3mg.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1310082091 21068 80.91.229.12 (7 Jul 2011 23:41:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:41:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 8628@debbugs.gnu.org To: "'Chong Yidong'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 08 01:41:27 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QeyCE-00050H-Pz for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 01:41:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54500 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QeyCC-0005ZY-Pj for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:41:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:51823) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QeyBt-0005Z6-HN for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:41:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QeyBr-0006ta-Hg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:41:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:36384) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QeyBr-0006tL-4Y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:41:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QeyBp-0000Ma-W8; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:41:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 23:41:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8628 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 8628-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B8628.13100820121324 (code B ref 8628); Thu, 07 Jul 2011 23:41:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8628) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Jul 2011 23:40:12 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QeyB0-0000LJ-Vg for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:40:11 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QeyAy-0000Ka-8m for 8628@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:40:09 -0400 Original-Received: from rtcsinet22.oracle.com (rtcsinet22.oracle.com [66.248.204.30]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p67Ndw8P014065 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:40:00 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by rtcsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p67NdvxG024143 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:39:58 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt119.oracle.com (abhmt119.oracle.com [141.146.116.71]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p67Ndpn7011778; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:39:51 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.194) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:39:51 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <87box5u3mg.fsf@stupidchicken.com> Thread-Index: Acw89UsCUS/WFBUUTuigfGL1+fCaoQABbwMw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Source-IP: rtcsinet22.oracle.com [66.248.204.30] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A020205.4E1643D1.0082:SCFSTAT5015188, ss=1, re=-4.000, fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:41:01 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:48225 Archived-At: > Maybe there is a bug here, You can't tell? Did you try the recipe? If so, do you have an opinion on whether the results returned are correct? It's OK to disagree about whether those results are correct, but I don't hear you saying anything about that one way or the other. Can you at least confirm that you see the same behavior? Hello? > but I'll leave it for some other Emacs developer who's willing to wade > through your abusive posts to find out what you're going on about. What's to wade through? The recipe is clear and takes only about 30 seconds to complete. 30 sec. to reproduce the bug or to determine that you cannot reproduce it on your system. You need go no further than the initial bug report to know what is being reported and how to see whether there is a bug. There is nothing abusive about repeating that ignored bug recipe, trying to focus attention on the bug and not on the irrelevant side show of whether `t-a-p-b-o-l-a-p' is internal or external. As I made clear, I really do not care _how_ the problem reported gets fixed; my concern is that it be fixed. My only complaint was your (pl.) not recognizing the bug, apparently not even trying the recipe. That complaint might express understandable frustration on my part, but it does not represent abuse, so please stop playing the victim. Not once did anyone even begin to address the bug (recipe) - to say (a) yes, the behavior is confirmed or no, the behavior cannot be reproduced or (b) the behavior is confirmed but is as intended (so not a bug). Instead, the only responses here were to reclassify the report as `wishlist' and then state that you will close it after marking `t-a-p-b-o-l-a-p' as internal (no connection with the bug). The bug is still there.