From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: Bug: Priority #B in Agenda causes invalid face reference [8.2.1 (8.2.1-15-ge5cecc-elpa @ /Users/Paul/.emacs.d/elpa/org-20131021/)] Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:22:20 +0200 Message-ID: <87bni8kqhf.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <87fv7qv8uu.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58159) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YnB40-0006LL-1O for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 15:21:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YnB3y-0000ev-Tn for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 15:20:59 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::195]:59390) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YnB3y-0000er-OT for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 15:20:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87fv7qv8uu.fsf@gmail.com> (Renato's message of "Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:21:45 -0300") 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-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Renato Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hello, Renato writes: > I'm using release_8.2.10 and experienced the same problem. > > The problem seems to be the function org-agenda-fontify-priorities which > calls: > (org-face-from-face-or-color > 'priority nil > (cdr (assoc p org-priority-faces))) > > which expects a face to inherit from. When org-priority-faces is nil or > color or even does not specify the priority(e.g. "B") it inherits from > nil and causes the message. AFAIU, this isn't right. If (assoc p org-priority-faces) is nil, so is its cdr and `org-face-from-face-or-color' returns nil, too. The `cond' moves to the next branch. > Setting it to something like > (quote > ((65 . org-level-1) > (66 . org-level-2) > (67 . org-level-3) > (68 . org-level-4)))) > > is a workaround to the problem. It is. But it hides where the real problem is. Do you have an ECM? Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou