From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Subject: Re: [BUG] org-table-beginning/end-of-field
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 12:25:29 +0200
Message-ID: <871trmbe92.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
References: <87mwaaekp8.fsf@sophokles.streitblatt.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33785)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1XQw7x-0005R8-98
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Sep 2014 06:25:01 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1XQw7p-0007TT-6d
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Sep 2014 06:24:53 -0400
Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::196]:56890)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1XQw7p-0007TK-0D
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Sep 2014 06:24:45 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87mwaaekp8.fsf@sophokles.streitblatt.de> (Florian Beck's message
	of "Mon, 08 Sep 2014 07:37:55 +0200")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Florian Beck <fb@miszellen.de>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Hello,

Florian Beck <fb@miszellen.de> writes:

> The argument of `org-table-beginning-of-field' and
> `org-table-end-of-field' is in fact not optional.

Thanks for the patch. Though, wouldn't it make more sense to properly
handle a missing argument instead?


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou