GNU bug report logs -
#40919
27.0.91; next-error-select-buffer does not always behave as documented
Previous Next
Reported by: Trevor Spiteri <tspiteri <at> ieee.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 01:52:01 UTC
Severity: normal
Found in version 27.0.91
Fixed in version 27.1
Done: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
> what kind of functions do they want to put on there?
Both next-error-buffer-on-selected-frame and next-error-no-navigation-try-current.
> And/or would they be content to advice-add on
> next-error-find-buffer-function instead?
Is it possible to add advice-add by using customization?
>> -(defcustom next-error-find-buffer-function #'ignore
>> +(defcustom next-error-find-buffer-function '(ignore)
>
> ^s, maybe?
Ok, when using as a hook it could be '-functions', but in case
of using advice-add it should be still '-function'.
>> + (or (and (functionp next-error-find-buffer-function)
>> + (funcall next-error-find-buffer-function avoid-current
>> + extra-test-inclusive extra-test-exclusive))
>> + (and (listp next-error-find-buffer-function)
>> + (run-hook-with-args-until-success
>> + 'next-error-find-buffer-function avoid-current
>> + extra-test-inclusive extra-test-exclusive)))
>
> Looks like run_hook_with_args can deal with the case where the value of the
> hook is a single function.
Ok, if it's impossible to use advice-add then lets simplify the hook case.
>> ;; 2. If next-error-last-buffer is an acceptable buffer, use that.
>> (if (and next-error-last-buffer
>> (next-error-buffer-p next-error-last-buffer avoid-current
>
> Should we take the rest of the cases in next-error-find-buffer and move
> them to the default value of the above hook?
I don't think so, I don't believe someone might want to customize the
rest of the cases.
This bug report was last modified 5 years and 49 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.