Matt Lundin writes: > Commit 44ec473c199262d89b372d8a6cd35bed7672164d from Feb. 23 causes > org-set-tags-command to move the cursor forward 1 char when situated on > headline asterisks. [...] > This commit modified a previous change on Feb. 21 > (450452de4b790706d187291f9f71a286f8f62004). But that commit also had > problems, since it would move the cursor one asterisk forward on > headlines > 1, thus also interfering with org-speed-keys. In my view > org-set-tags-command should not move the cursor except to fix the very > specific thing that commit 450452de4b was meant to fix: namely the > cursor moving when on a blank headline: i.e., from here...
Thanks for the nice description of the problem. I wouldn't mind if at least a condensed version made its way into the commit message :) > I've attached a patch that corrects the problem, but it would be ideal > if we figured out why the cursor is moving in the first place. I looked quickly at org-set-tags (and the functions it calls). Based on commenting bits out, I think there are at least a couple of parts that modify the buffer in a way that prevent save-excursion from restoring the intended location. While not ideal, this after-the-fact adjustment is probably the simplest way to deal with the issue. > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Fix bug that placed cursor incorrectly when setting tags > > * lisp/org.el: (org-set-tags-command) Only fix cursor position in very nitpick: The colon should follow (org-set-tags-command). > diff --git a/lisp/org.el b/lisp/org.el > index dd017e662..0e4fd7be1 100644 > --- a/lisp/org.el > +++ b/lisp/org.el > @@ -11846,8 +11846,9 @@ in Lisp code use `org-set-tags' instead." > (org-set-tags tags))))) > ;; `save-excursion' may not replace the point at the right > ;; position. > - (when (save-excursion (skip-chars-backward "*") (bolp)) > - (forward-char)))) > + (and (looking-at " ") > + (string-match "\\*+" (buffer-substring (point-at-bol) (point))) > + (forward-char)))) Looks fine to me, with the minor nit that I think looking-at-p and string-match-p would be preferable here. Would you mind adding a regression test?