Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:

>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 18:35:55 +0200, Ferdinand Pieper
> <list_gnu@pie.tf> said:
>     >> So if the event was sent with a COMMENT the receiver canʼt add their
>     >> own? That doesnʼt match my conception of 'reply with comment'. Iʼm
>     >> hazy on whatʼs exactly allowed in ical, can you have more than one
>     >> COMMENT line? Or we could combine the comments?
>
>     Ferdinand> If it already exists it is replaced by the prior
>     >> >> ((string= key "COMMENT") (update-comment line))
>     Ferdinand> Just if it does not exist the `(string= key "COMMENT")`
>     Ferdinand> never matches and we have to add the field.
>
> Sorry, I missed that bit.
>
>     >> I think we tend to word this as
>     >> 
>     >> "Optional argument COMMENT-P (interactively the prefix argument) means
>     >> prompt for a comment to include in the reply."
>
>     Ferdinand> Updated using `\\[universal-argument]'. Or does that
>     Ferdinand> not matter here and just "prefix argument" would be
>     Ferdinand> fine?
>
> Either one is fine I think.
>
>     >> Ideally youʼd add test cases for this to
>     >> "test/lisp/gnus/gnus-icalendar-tests.el". But thatʼs not mandatory.
>
>     Ferdinand> I looked into it and will add a few tests for
>     Ferdinand> accepting/declining events with and without comments. I
>     Ferdinand> will followup on this in a couple days.
>     Ferdinand> It might also make sense to extend the parsing of
>     Ferdinand> events to recognize comments (and potentially display
>     Ferdinand> them inside emacs.
>
> That would be good as a followup patch.
>
> Robert