"Roland Winkler" writes:
> PS: Wait! You say you have dreams that cannot be coded in elisp??
I hear some folks get divide-by-zero errors.
--
http://www.wistly.net
--
All the data continuously generated in your IT infr
On Mon Sep 26 2011 Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > "Direct editing" maybe similar to wdired-mode could be, indeed, a
> > great thing. -- Yet as I said: I'll postpone such dreams till BBDB 3
> > has been released.
>
> No! I want it now!
> [...starts rolling on the floor screaming...]
> Now! now! now! no
> "Direct editing" maybe similar to wdired-mode could be, indeed, a
> great thing. -- Yet as I said: I'll postpone such dreams till BBDB 3
> has been released.
No! I want it now!
[...starts rolling on the floor screaming...]
Now! now! now! now! now!!
Stefan "Damn adults!"
On Mon, Sep 26 2011, Roland Winkler wrote:
> On Mon Sep 26 2011 Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>> Why not have separate minibuffer prompts for surname and given name?
>>
>> Many of my records are for Chinese people. Right now I can't be bothered
>> separating out the characters for surname and given name
On Sun Sep 25 2011 Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > I should add: Such a rather substantial change would have rather low
> > priority on my current BBDB agenda. Currently, I consider a proper
> > BBDB release more important.
>
> Being able to (more or less) directly edit the *BBDB* buffer would
> be grea
On Mon Sep 26 2011 Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
> Why not have separate minibuffer prompts for surname and given name?
>
> Many of my records are for Chinese people. Right now I can't be bothered
> separating out the characters for surname and given name, and usually
> they all get lumped into whatever
>> A much fancier solution would be to reimplement bbdb-create from
>> scratch by using something like a form to fill, similar to what
>> customize is using.
> I should add: Such a rather substantial change would have rather low
> priority on my current BBDB agenda. Currently, I consider a proper
>
On Mon, Sep 26 2011, Roland Winkler wrote:
> On Sun Sep 25 2011 Roland Winkler wrote:
>> A much fancier solution would be to reimplement bbdb-create from
>> scratch by using something like a form to fill, similar to what
>> customize is using.
>
> I should add: Such a rather substantial change wou
On Sun Sep 25 2011 Roland Winkler wrote:
> A much fancier solution would be to reimplement bbdb-create from
> scratch by using something like a form to fill, similar to what
> customize is using.
I should add: Such a rather substantial change would have rather low
priority on my current BBDB agend
On Sun Sep 25 2011 Leo wrote:
> I am fine with anything that allows one to enter organisation-only
> records nicely. For example, dividing "Lucky Star Buffet Restaurant"
> into firstname and lastname is not nice. We should get rid of that.
Any suggestions what to do?
It seems that again this is a
On 2011-09-24 03:27 +0800, Roland Winkler wrote:
> When I looked at this once more I thought that this could be
> something more people might like to use so that it could become part
> of the "BBDB trunk". Namely:
>
> There could be an optional note field `name-face' similar to
> `creation-date' an
On Thu Sep 22 2011 Roland Winkler wrote:
> It seems to me that something like a note field for the predicate
> `person-p' with values natural, artifical, restaurant, bookstore etc
> was more to the point here. Then the only thing you need to
> customize is the function bbdb-display-name-organizatio
On Thu Sep 22 2011 Leo wrote:
> It makes a different in displaying records. See:
> http://i.imgur.com/0NJt1.png
>
> Another example is one can list all organization-only records
> easily.
It seems to me that something like a note field for the predicate
`person-p' with values natural, artifical,
On 2011-09-21 23:11 +0800, Roland Winkler wrote:
>> (bbdb-defstruct record
>> firstname lastname affix aka organization organization-p phone address mail
>> notes cache)
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> Maybe, I am just missing a typical application for myself. How could
> such an extra predicate be
On Wed Sep 21 2011 Leo wrote:
> Maybe a cleaner way is to insert a new slot `organisation-p' in the
> definition:
>
> (bbdb-defstruct record
> firstname lastname affix aka organization organization-p phone address mail
> notes cache)
>
> What do you think?
Maybe, I am just missing a typical ap
On Tue Sep 20 2011 Leo wrote:
> Better support for organisation-only records. Also fix a bug when
> firstname or lastname are nil. Comments welcome ;)
For those who did not browse Leo's code:
The current BBDB code assumes that a record should have a name so
that the record can be identified by t
16 matches
Mail list logo
