GNU bug report logs - #12985
eval-last-sexp looks broken when executed twice

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Kelly Dean <kellydeanch <at> yahoo.com>

Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 01:54:02 UTC

Severity: minor

Tags: notabug

Merged with 15655

Done: Juri Linkov <juri <at> jurta.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Kelly Dean <kellydeanch <at> yahoo.com>
Subject: bug#12985: closed (Re: bug#12985: eval-last-sexp looks broken
 when executed twice)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 21:04:02 +0000
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Your bug report

#12985: eval-last-sexp looks broken when executed twice

which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 12985 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

-- 
12985: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=12985
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems
[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
From: Juri Linkov <juri <at> jurta.org>
To: Kelly Dean <kellydeanch <at> yahoo.com>
Cc: 12985-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#12985: eval-last-sexp looks broken when executed twice
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 23:03:36 +0200
> It seems a better design would be to always include the string, even
> the first time, when displaying in the echo area, and never include
> the string when printing into the buffer, regardless of the invoking
> command name. This is simpler, and it's how eval-expression
> already works.

This is implemented now, including other discussed changes.

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]
From: Kelly Dean <kellydeanch <at> yahoo.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: eval-last-sexp looks broken when executed twice
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:52:06 -0800 (PST)
Using 24.2, type:
5
Then do C-x C-e, and as expected it echoes:
5
But then do C-x C-e again, and unexpectedly it echoes:
5 (#o5, #x5, ?\C-e)
The same thing happens if you type 5 then do C-u C-x C-e C-u C-x C-e; first as expected you get:
55
Then unexpectedly you get:
5555 (#o67, #x37, ?7)




This bug report was last modified 11 years and 186 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.