From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Glenn Morris Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6027: 23.1.96; negative arg to pcomplete-arg broken Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:46:30 -0400 Message-ID: <8gr55webih.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1310420848 27363 80.91.229.12 (11 Jul 2011 21:47:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:47:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 6027@debbugs.gnu.org To: Leo Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 11 23:47:24 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 1QgOK3-00080B-Fr for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:47:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60674 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QgOK2-0003si-Nq for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:47:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:48671) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QgOJm-0003sD-TC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:47:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QgOJj-0001Ju-HP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:47:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:55687) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QgOJj-0001Jp-6j for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:47:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QgOJi-00065J-Ez; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:47:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Glenn Morris Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:47:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6027 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: moreinfo Original-Received: via spool by 6027-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6027.131042079923358 (code B ref 6027); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:47:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6027) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2011 21:46:39 +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 1QgOJL-00064f-4d for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:46:39 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QgOJJ-00064U-4K for 6027@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:46:37 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43987) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QgOJC-0006ru-OS; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:46:30 -0400 X-Spook: SHA top secret USDOJ Yukon Bin Laden Freeh Kennedy Uzi X-Ran: [M*L1(""7[0eB'MoxY'OGs5:+6k".DgdScDqh5ZIE!Z?*CwQG&HW]/<}8q~[sy(8a;6;_, X-Hue: blue X-Attribution: GM In-Reply-To: (Leo's message of "Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:37:31 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:47:02 -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:48657 Archived-At: Leo wrote: > Is pcomplete-arg broken? If the INDEX is negative, it always return nil > (I examine this in a edebug process during which (pcomplete-arg 1) > returns correct value). The body of the function does not seem to > contain any code handling negative INDEX though the doc string however > describes exact behaviour of negative INDEX. Do you have an example of an actual problem? It basically does (nth (- pcomplete-index index) pcomplete-args) which looks fine to me. positive/negative indices are intepreted as offsets to pcomplete-index, which is what the doc says.