From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: function for inserting a block Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 23:33:43 +0200 Message-ID: <87fuahxxvs.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <877exghblx.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87efromccg.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87ziabepxt.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87bmml2fb0.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87fubuzpsa.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <874lsabdop.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87vak1l11m.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87r2uoc4q7.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87bmllk5xy.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <878tgmwwsa.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87po9q2e8k.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87tvyyvpst.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87fuaiz069.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87lgk9eo4d.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45625) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e4ZUg-0004jD-76 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:33:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e4ZUf-0001Ch-Cp for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:33:46 -0400 Received: from relay2-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::194]:38681) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e4ZUf-0001C0-6F for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:33:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87lgk9eo4d.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> (Eric Abrahamsen's message of "Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:27:14 -0700") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: Eric Abrahamsen Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Eric Abrahamsen writes: > I'm still not quite seeing this. This chunk should take care of it: > > (goto-char e) > (if (bolp) > (progn > (skip-chars-backward " \n\t") > (forward-line)) > (end-of-line) > (insert "\n")) > > If "e" is EOB, we do `end-of-line' and insert a newline, it should be > taken care of. I added a new clause in the test for this case, and it > seems to work fine... Am I missing anything? I don't think so. It looks correct, indeed. However, you sent the wrong patch. Could you send the updated patch again? Thank you. Regards,