Mark Triggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all,
Hi ! > It looks like the changes I made to the bookmarks-missing code yesterday > have stopped M-x tla-missing from working properly. This is because the > `tla-bookmarks-missing-do-todolist' function gets used by both of them, > but I've *cough* hardcoded the name of the *tla-bookmarks-missing* > buffer in there. ;-) > I was contemplating using `tla--get-buffer-create' to fix the problem, > but I'm not sure how this would work. As the *tla-bookmarks-missing* > buffer could potentially include several working trees, I'm not sure > what the second argument should be. nil is now accepted. In a *tla-bookmarks-missing* buffer, the local tree is coded for each element of the ewoc list (See, when you type `S' on one element, it suggests the right tree). > Any thoughts on the best way to fix this? I suppose > tla--get-buffer-create could be modified to accept one or more paths, It already accepts nil. I think this is what you need. Note that with nil as an argument, you can only have one *tla-bookmarks-missing* buffer at a time. Perhaps we could provide a way to have several, but I'm not sure how usefull this would be (maybe more confusing than usefull). By the way, the tla-bookmarks-missing function could be modified not to use tla-bookmarks-missing-do-todolist. I had introduced this "todolist" to make the processes asynchronous with the old process sentinel scheme (I had no other way to tell the process sentinel what was still to be done) but this is now rather useless. -- Matthieu
