GNU bug report logs - #58256
Possible mistake in recent `dired-do-flagged-delete' change

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman <at> gmx.net>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 58256 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#58256: Possible mistake in recent `dired-do-flagged-delete' change
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 22:46:15 +0200

On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 20:42:17 +0200 Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems like there might be a mistake in the `dired-do-flagged-delete'
> of this commit:
>
>     commit 194d54a929a83fede75d618b104acd1b544feb10
>     Author: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman <at> gmx.net>
>     Date:   Fri Jun 4 12:01:41 2021 +0200
>
>         Fix placement of point in Dired deletion operations
>
> It seems like there is a `dolist' that will always run on the empty
> list.  Was perhaps the below the intended change?

Yeah, it looks like I mistakenly put the dolist in the 'else' clause
instead of the 'then' clause.  Thanks for catching that.

On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 19:17:27 +0000 Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> If so, I wonder how this code would have worked without that `dolist' so
>> far, and if that line could just be removed instead?
>
> The command seems to be working correctly with the attached patch.
>
> Am I missing something here?

I think doing it that way leaves the markers in the buffer, though
probably for typical use cases that's not a problem, and it is simpler
that way (as I noted when I posted my patch).  I guess the same
simplification can be applied to `dired-do-delete' as well.

Steve Berman

Previous Next

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