From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ken Olum Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17560: 24.4.50; wrong type argument if rmail-delete-after-output set Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 11:50:59 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1400860765 27016 80.91.229.3 (23 May 2014 15:59:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 15:59:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 17560@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 23 17:59:17 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 1WnrsK-0006AK-QK for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 May 2014 17:59:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44430 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WnrsK-0004Jb-HB for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 May 2014 11:59:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35465) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WnrlY-00015N-EJ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 23 May 2014 11:52:23 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WnrlK-0001gP-Iz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 23 May 2014 11:52:16 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:59156) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WnrlK-0001gK-FC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 23 May 2014 11:52:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WnrlK-0007wt-7R for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 23 May 2014 11:52:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Ken Olum Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 15:52:02 +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=B17560.140086027830484 (code B ref 17560); Fri, 23 May 2014 15:52:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17560) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 May 2014 15:51:18 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58033 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WnrkX-0007vS-1l for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 May 2014 11:51:18 -0400 Original-Received: from cosmos.phy.tufts.edu ([130.64.83.16]:41908) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WnrkK-0007uj-4h for 17560@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 May 2014 11:51:12 -0400 Original-Received: from kdo by cosmos.phy.tufts.edu ([local]:local) with local id 1WnrkJ-0000M2-Ie - Using Exim-4.80.1 (MandrivaLinux) MTA (return-path ); Fri, 23 May 2014 11:50:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <83mwe8ldeu.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Fri, 23 May 2014 18:31:37 +0300) 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:89398 Archived-At: I'd put (if (not count) (setq count 1)) in rmail-delete-forward and for consistency make the argument of rmail-delete-backward optional and add the same code there. Unfortunately, that is not consistent with rmail-next-message, for example. The alternative would be to make the argument not optional and change all callers to say (rmail-delete-forward 1). Unfortunately, in previous versions of emacs this would mean to move backward, so new calls would be incompatible with the old definition, which I think argues against this plan. Ken