On Fri, Aug 31 2012, Tomi Ollila wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31 2012, Austin Clements wrote:
>
>> LGTM. Alternatively, the test could be
>> (null (notmuch-wash))
>> with the correct answer being 't'. That would avoid the awkward
>> detour through a string, but either way is good as long as
On Fri, Aug 31 2012, Austin Clements wrote:
> LGTM. Alternatively, the test could be
> (null (notmuch-wash))
> with the correct answer being 't'. That would avoid the awkward
> detour through a string, but either way is good as long as this test
> passes.
I was going to vote this (null
david at tethera.net writes:
> From: David Bremner
>
> The behaviour of "emacsclient --eval nil" changed from emacs23 to
> emacs24, and in emacs24 it prints 'nil' rather than an empty string.
pushed,
d
LGTM. Alternatively, the test could be
(null (notmuch-wash))
with the correct answer being 't'. That would avoid the awkward
detour through a string, but either way is good as long as this test
passes.
Quoth david at tethera.net on Aug 30 at 10:09 pm:
> From: David Bremner
>
> The
da...@tethera.net writes:
From: David Bremner brem...@debian.org
The behaviour of emacsclient --eval nil changed from emacs23 to
emacs24, and in emacs24 it prints 'nil' rather than an empty string.
pushed,
d
___
notmuch mailing list
From: David Bremner
The behaviour of "emacsclient --eval nil" changed from emacs23 to
emacs24, and in emacs24 it prints 'nil' rather than an empty string.
(format "%S" foo) produces a sexpr form of foo, and is consistent
between the two versions.
---
This fixes another test
From: David Bremner brem...@debian.org
The behaviour of emacsclient --eval nil changed from emacs23 to
emacs24, and in emacs24 it prints 'nil' rather than an empty string.
(format %S foo) produces a sexpr form of foo, and is consistent
between the two versions.
---
This fixes another test