From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: Bug: Inconsistent usage of org-capture-get [9.2 (release_9.2 @ /Users/xristos/code/elisp/third-party/org-mode/lisp/)] Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2019 14:19:00 +0100 Message-ID: <877efkv9vf.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <335zv5k9xg.fsf@sdf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51925) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gfPNS-0000u1-TH for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2019 08:19:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gfPNP-0005Ir-Qg for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2019 08:19:06 -0500 Received: from relay1-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.193]:47091) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gfPNP-0005IO-Kb for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2019 08:19:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: <335zv5k9xg.fsf@sdf.org> (xristos's message of "Thu, 03 Jan 2019 11:00:59 -0500") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: xristos Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hello, xristos writes: > At some point, the optional argument LOCAL was added to org-capture-get: > > (org-capture-get PROP &optional LOCAL) > > "When LOCAL is set, use the local variable =E2=80=98org-capture-current-p= list=E2=80=99, > this is necessary after initialization of the capture process, > to avoid conflicts with other active capture processes." > > A lot of the org-capture-get calls in org-capture.el do not set LOCAL > and suffer from aforementioned conflicts. The calls inside function org-c= apture > are exempt from this, but the calls inside org-capture-finalize that do n= ot > set LOCAL are obviously erroneous. There are more org-capture-get calls in > other functions that have to be reviewed. Do you want to provide a patch for that? Regards, --=20 Nicolas Goaziou