On Tue, 10 May 2011 01:47:17 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> This looks good to me (and is certainly more correct), but seems
> rather roundabout. Is there a reason this code doesn't simply (princ
> (buffer-string))?
>
Thanks, Austin!
I am, unfortunately, not an Emacs Lisp expert. I did not k
The patch replaces all (message (buffer-string)) calls in emacs
tests with (message "%s" (buffer-string)). This works around an
Emacs (23.3+1-1 on current Debian Unstable) segfault in "Ensure
that emacs doesn't drop results" test. Note: the segfault does
not happen on every test run. Though, it
This looks good to me (and is certainly more correct), but seems
rather roundabout. Is there a reason this code doesn't simply (princ
(buffer-string))?
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Dmitry Kurochkin
wrote:
> The patch replaces all (message (buffer-string)) calls in emacs
> tests with (message
On Tue, 10 May 2011 01:47:17 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> This looks good to me (and is certainly more correct), but seems
> rather roundabout. Is there a reason this code doesn't simply (princ
> (buffer-string))?
>
Thanks, Austin!
I am, unfortunately, not an Emacs Lisp expert. I did not k
This looks good to me (and is certainly more correct), but seems
rather roundabout. Is there a reason this code doesn't simply (princ
(buffer-string))?
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Dmitry Kurochkin
wrote:
> The patch replaces all (message (buffer-string)) calls in emacs
> tests with (message
The patch replaces all (message (buffer-string)) calls in emacs
tests with (message "%s" (buffer-string)). This works around an
Emacs (23.3+1-1 on current Debian Unstable) segfault in "Ensure
that emacs doesn't drop results" test. Note: the segfault does
not happen on every test run. Though, it