Bastien writes:
> Confirming this as an issue, if someone wants to fix it.
I've tried taking a shot at addressing this issue via the patch attached.
As mentioned in the thread, might potentially cause issues by changing how it
matches -- should there be an option? Or is the idea just that if
I've attached a patch that addresses the recursion issue with Emacs 28
and shows eldoc properly with example python. It presumably should act
the same with older versions of Emacs, although I haven't tested.
diff --git a/contrib/lisp/org-eldoc.el b/contrib/lisp/org-eldoc.el
index
Ihor Radchenko writes:
>> It seems to always work properly from the org buffer itself, so I assume
>> it's something happening in the agenda, but I'm not sure where to look.
>> I've tried debugging `org-agenda-todo`, but I can't see anything in
>> askance there. Any advice as to what I should be
>>> It seems to always work properly from the org buffer itself, so I assume
>>> it's something happening in the agenda, but I'm not sure where to look.
>>> I've tried debugging `org-agenda-todo`, but I can't see anything in
>>> askance there. Any advice as to what I should be looking for?
I've started seeing an issues as of a couple of days ago, after upgrading to
org 9.4.
When I mark a task with a recurring deadline done from the agenda view,
sometimes it doesn't recur, but instead marks the task as done.
I haven't yet been able to isolate why -- just now I marked a task as
ow the new eldoc strategy works, by passing through the
callback to the mode-local eldoc function if available, which will be a
closure over the configured documentation strategy with
eldoc-documentation-functions bound to the appropriate mode-local value.
>From 4c2042c9e3820d88cd655cf01d572b9686a40
Kyle Meyer writes:
> Using lexical-let here is problematic because it's obsolete since Emacs
> 24. Taking a quick glance, I don't see any issues with switching this
> file over to lexical binding by adding " -*- lexical-binding: t; -*-" to
> the first line.
Cool, will do. I was concerned that
James N. V. Cash writes:
> I was just thinking more about this, and I'm concerned I might need to
> change things around a little bit more. The closure that
> org-eldoc-get-mode-local-documentation-function now returns under Emacs
> 28 doesn't take any arguments and instead lets
ecessary we could just check the value of
eldoc-documentation-strategy and behave appropriately.
>From 7d59ecadbea429626bae90464d76f01b60c8d67f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "James N. V. Cash"
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:51:13 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Address org-eldoc-recurs
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> Do we need another variable for that? Could
> org-eldoc-documentation-function catch wrong-number-of-arguments error,
> and try another call instead?
I believe that the issue is org-eldoc-documentation-function itself is
called with the wrong number of arguments; the
, which puts eldoc in
"backwards-compatability" mode.
>From 5c04048c0d1ed3f80c7dd3e6477e12fc8e760675 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "James N. V. Cash"
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:56:23 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Make org-eldoc work with Emacs 28's new eldoc API
Still using
Kyle Meyer writes:
> Basil L. Contovounesios writes:
>> How involved would it be to make org-eldoc work in
>> non-"backwards-compatibility" mode?
>
> I think we can do that, while still supporting Org's minimum Emacs
> version, by following python.el. Here's what it does:
> ...
>
> ...
12 matches
Mail list logo
