From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 24 07:37:43 2010 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Apr 2010 11:37:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O5dg7-0006QJ-E2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 07:37:43 -0400 Received: from mail.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166] helo=mx10.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O5dg5-0006QD-Ud for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 07:37:42 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]:34983) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1O5dg2-00051U-VB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 07:37:39 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O5dg1-00036Y-VG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 07:37:37 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54328 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O5dg0-00036A-Se for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 07:37:37 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD, T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.0 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O5dfz-0003dx-Dp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 07:37:36 -0400 Received: from ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.143]:42256) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O5dfz-0003dc-8H for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 07:37:35 -0400 X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from cpc1-cmbg13-0-0-cust596.cmbg.cable.ntl.com ([86.9.122.85]:53225 helo=Victoria.local) by ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:587) with esmtpsa (PLAIN:sl392) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) id 1O5dfw-0006ho-FW (Exim 4.70) for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org (return-path ); Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:37:33 +0100 From: Leo To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 23.1.96; negative arg to pcomplete-arg broken Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:37:31 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-Spam-Score: -6.6 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.6 (------) Is pcomplete-arg broken? If the INDEX is negative, it always return nil (I examine this in a edebug process during which (pcomplete-arg 1) returns correct value). The body of the function does not seem to contain any code handling negative INDEX though the doc string however describes exact behaviour of negative INDEX. Thanks. Leo From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 11 17:46:39 2011 Received: (at 6027) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2011 21:46:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QgOJL-00064f-4d for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:46:39 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QgOJJ-00064U-4K for 6027@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:46:37 -0400 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43987) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QgOJC-0006ru-OS; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:46:30 -0400 From: Glenn Morris To: Leo Subject: Re: bug#6027: 23.1.96; negative arg to pcomplete-arg broken References: X-Spook: SHA top secret USDOJ Yukon Bin Laden Freeh Kennedy Uzi X-Ran: [M*L1(""7[0eB'MoxY'OGs5:+6k".DgdScDqh5ZIE!Z?*CwQG&HW]/<}8q~[sy(8a;6;_, X-Hue: blue X-Attribution: GM Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:46:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Leo's message of "Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:37:31 +0100") Message-ID: <8gr55webih.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6027 Cc: 6027@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) Leo wrote: > Is pcomplete-arg broken? If the INDEX is negative, it always return nil > (I examine this in a edebug process during which (pcomplete-arg 1) > returns correct value). The body of the function does not seem to > contain any code handling negative INDEX though the doc string however > describes exact behaviour of negative INDEX. Do you have an example of an actual problem? It basically does (nth (- pcomplete-index index) pcomplete-args) which looks fine to me. positive/negative indices are intepreted as offsets to pcomplete-index, which is what the doc says. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jul 12 00:33:59 2011 Received: (at 6027) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2011 04:33:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QgUfW-0003Xk-C5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:33:58 -0400 Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com ([209.85.210.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QgUfU-0003XY-SL for 6027@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:33:57 -0400 Received: by iye7 with SMTP id 7so4326416iye.3 for <6027@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:33:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=cCg8uM5d8VaDBMw6qLhZGpf80biy9RJwWzbrpDmg1e8=; b=IFlk79uC2gVI1H0B2gzXFcpRCCrxaZePPnELYkvHEyyeypjMXTmLKCph9HbFXLKTBD QJmLkLIIkoVSAUcf53k7l6zTDcZNTJ/1/dNT3BbsqweiDYMYZxfuiHcMvM9SPxlNLVdM 2D2ZPvUKMEKeE2YUw8DRgMu8H7vu7lYZVxL/s= Received: by 10.231.68.196 with SMTP id w4mr5255706ibi.28.1310445230993; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:33:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([114.247.10.74]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x4sm7322084ibm.8.2011.07.11.21.33.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:33:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Leo To: Glenn Morris Subject: Re: bug#6027: 23.1.96; negative arg to pcomplete-arg broken References: <8gr55webih.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:33:35 +0800 In-Reply-To: <8gr55webih.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (Glenn Morris's message of "Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:46:30 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3.50 (Mac OS X 10.6.7) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6027 Cc: 6027@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) On 2011-07-12 05:46 +0800, Glenn Morris wrote: > Do you have an example of an actual problem? It basically does > > (nth (- pcomplete-index index) pcomplete-args) > > which looks fine to me. positive/negative indices are intepreted as > offsets to pcomplete-index, which is what the doc says. I have re-read the code and the doc-string and come to the same conclusion as yours. I guess this bug can be closed. Leo From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jul 12 03:03:48 2011 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2011 07:03:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QgX0W-0006vF-FE for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 03:03:48 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QgX0U-0006uv-Ar for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 03:03:47 -0400 Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QgX0O-00060D-Nl for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 03:03:40 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 03:03:40 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: control message for bug 6027 To: X-Mailer: mail (GNU Mailutils 2.1) From: Glenn Morris X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) close 6027 From unknown Sat Aug 09 15:54:33 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 11:24:04 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator