Hi all :o) I've just committed a patch that cleans up the "tla missing" code and makes M-x tla-missing work properly again. It's a reasonable sized change, so here's the log entry:
,---- | Because of the new way of calling tla, the "tla missing" functionality | was a bit more complex than it needed to be. I've slightly changed the | behaviour of tla-missing and tla-bookmarks-missing as follows: | | `tla-missing' takes the local tree and version name from the user, and | sets the buffer variable `tla-missing-buffer-todolist' to something like | ((missing <local-tree> <location> nil)). It then calls | `tla-missing-refresh'. | | `tla-bookmarks-missing' does much the same thing, setting the buffer | variable `tla-missing-buffer-todolist' to a list of missing elements | that should be processed (e.g. a list of (separator ..) (missing ..) | (changes ..) elements). It then calls `tla-missing-refresh'. | | (This is probably the main difference: tla-missing-refresh handles the | generation of the "*tla-missing*" buffer for both of the above | functions--I've removed tla-bookmarks-missing-refresh.). The only real | difference this causes is that the buffer name "*tla-missing*" is used | for both missing commands. | | So, when `tla-missing-refresh' gets called, it groks | `tla-missing-buffer-todolist' and generates the contents of the buffer, | checking for missing patches etc. | | I've also killed off a couple of global/buffer variables that were no | longer needed under the new system. Everything seems to work :o) `---- That's pretty much it. I haven't modified it to use `tla--get-buffer-create' yet, but I'll do that soon. I think I need a function to check whether a buffer already exists (but without creating it). Any objections to adding a `tla--get-buffer' function? Cheers, Mark -- Mark Triggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
