dirtrack.el:200:8:Warning: function dirtrack-toggle used to take 0-1 arguments, now takes 0

dirtrack.el:200:8:Warning: function dirtrack-toggle used to take 0-1 arguments, now takes 0

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Can somebody the knows what this code is supposed to do please take a
look at this warning?

Re: dirtrack.el:200:8:Warning: function dirtrack-toggle used to take 0-1 arguments, now takes 0

[Glenn Morris]

Dan Nicolaescu wrote:

> Can somebody the knows what this code is supposed to do please take a
> look at this warning?

I think it's a result of this line in shell.el:

  (defalias 'dirtrack-toggle 'shell-dirtrack-mode)

and dirtrack requiring shell when compiling.

Re: dirtrack.el:200:8:Warning: function dirtrack-toggle used to take 0-1 arguments, now takes 0

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:

  > Dan Nicolaescu wrote:
  > 
  > > Can somebody the knows what this code is supposed to do please take a
  > > look at this warning?
  > 
  > I think it's a result of this line in shell.el:
  > 
  >   (defalias 'dirtrack-toggle 'shell-dirtrack-mode)
  > 
  > and dirtrack requiring shell when compiling.

Saw that, but dirtrack.el and shell.el could at least agree on the
number of arguments for dirtrack-toggle. And the comments are 
also "interesting". 

Maybe someone that understands what the intention is with that code
can take a look?

Re: dirtrack.el:200:8:Warning: function dirtrack-toggle used to take 0-1 arguments, now takes 0

[Richard Stallman]

It appears that shell.el contains code to track directory changes, and
dirtrack.el is another implementation.  A priori it seems undesirable
to have both.  Is there a reason to have both of them?  Which one is better?

Maybe we should keep the better one, put it in shell.el if it isn't
there already, and delete the other.

Re: dirtrack.el:200:8:Warning: function dirtrack-toggle used to take 0-1 arguments, now takes 0

[Glenn Morris]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> It appears that shell.el contains code to track directory changes, and
> dirtrack.el is another implementation.  A priori it seems undesirable
> to have both.  Is there a reason to have both of them?

They are different solutions to the same problem (keeping track of PWD
in a shell). One tracks `cd' (etc) commands, the other assumes you
have a prompt that shows the full PWD. I tidied up the namespaces so
that they don't clash any more.

Re: dirtrack.el:200:8:Warning: function dirtrack-toggle used to take 0-1 arguments, now takes 0

[Richard Stallman]

    They are different solutions to the same problem (keeping track of PWD
    in a shell). One tracks `cd' (etc) commands, the other assumes you
    have a prompt that shows the full PWD.

Could you document the two in one place, explaining the difference,
so that users understand the choice available?

Re: dirtrack.el:200:8:Warning: function dirtrack-toggle used to take 0-1 arguments, now takes 0

[Glenn Morris]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> Could you document the two in one place, explaining the difference,
> so that users understand the choice available?

I believe this is now adequately documented.