Re: [PATCH] Remove superfluous lambda.

[Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>]

On Jul 2, 2010, at 3:21 PM, Sebastian Rose wrote:

> David Maus <dmaus@ictsoc.de> writes:
>> Carsten Dominik wrote:
>>> Hmm, the catcher did not see this.  Why?
>>
>> He did: http://patchwork.newartisans.com/patch/105/ -- patch is
>> already applied.
>
>
> Where can I see that?
>
>
> I read "Accepted" which is not "Applied", is it?
>
>
> And there are "accepted" patches, that are not "applied".
>
> E.g. http://patchwork.newartisans.com/patch/73/

It is possible that I made a mistake here.

>
>
> The diff against the current head (8da31057eb0952889858c):
>
> diff --git a/lisp/org-capture.el b/lisp/org-capture.el
> index 8c887ce..f38a78c 100644
> --- a/lisp/org-capture.el
> +++ b/lisp/org-capture.el
> @@ -924,6 +924,8 @@ Point will remain at the first line after the  
> inserted text."
>   (org-capture-put :key (car entry) :description (nth 1 entry)
> 		   :target (nth 3 entry))
>   (let ((txt (nth 4 entry)) (type (or (nth 2 entry) 'entry)))
> +    (when (file-exists-p txt)
> +	(setq txt (org-file-contents txt)))
>     (when (or (not txt) (not (string-match "\\S-" txt)))
>       ;; The template may be empty or omitted for special types.
>       ;; Here we insert the default templates for such cases.


I am rejecting this patch in the current form, because the ambiguity
between file name and template is not good.

I did check in a different patch, where the template may be a sting, or

   (file "/path-to-file")

or

   (function function-to-make-template)

This should provide more stable and more flexible ways to do this.

- Carsten

>
>
>
> Is it possible to link to the commit a patch was applied?
>
>
>
>
>  Sebastian

- Carsten