John Kitchin <jkitc...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 1. the point moves in org-map-entries, and I thought it would not since
> the documentation says the function is wrapped in save-excursion. This
> lead to the results going in the wrong place.
>
I can duplicate this, but I'm not sure whether it's a bug or not. The
doc says that org-map-entries calls FUNC within a save-excursion, not
that org-map-entries itself is wrapped. The code does
(cond ((eq scope 'tree)
(org-back-to-heading t)
(org-narrow-to-subtree)
(setq scope nil))
...)
and org-back-to-heading moves point. You can certainly wrap the calls to
org-map-entries within save-excursion and that would work around the
problem. Whether org-map-entries should do that internally, I don't
know. The fact that 7.9.3f does not move point might indicate that
this is indeed a bug.
[Later...]
OK, I played the git blame game and found commit 3ec38f5c:
,----
| commit 3ec38f5c064c3270f54876ba33c5ca1097b46853
| Author: Bastien Guerry <b...@altern.org>
| Date: Thu Mar 14 14:40:00 2013 +0100
|
| org.el (org-map-entries): Use `save-window-excursion'
|
| * org.el (org-map-entries): Use `save-window-excursion'.
|
| diff --git a/lisp/org.el b/lisp/org.el
| index 66c79f5..52ae163 100644
| --- a/lisp/org.el
| +++ b/lisp/org.el
| @@ -14638,7 +14638,7 @@ a *different* entry, you cannot use these techniques."
| ((eq match nil) (setq matcher t))
| (t (setq matcher (if match (cdr (org-make-tags-matcher match)) t))))
|
| - (save-excursion
| + (save-window-excursion
| (save-restriction
| (cond ((eq scope 'tree)
| (org-back-to-heading t)
`----
If I change the save-window-excursion back to a save-excursion,
org-map-entries doe not move point. So I guess the ball is in
Bastien's court: why was the save-excursion changed to a
save-window-excursion? Should the whole thing be wrapped in
a save-excursion as well?
> 2. In using a PROPERTY search, headings that did not have the property
> got "mapped".
I can duplicate this too but haven't dug any further.
--
Nick
