On 24/12/12 21:43, Bastien wrote
> Well, the patch is wrong, if (cdr (assoc :wrap (nth 2 info)))
> is in the (and ...) sexp, no need to have it in the (or ...)
> sexp?
>
> I'll mark it as "not applicable".  I let you propose another
> patch if you still need to fix an issue in this area.
>
> Thanks!

Good catch. I haven't been able to reproduce the original problem, so
I'm happy to abandon this patch.