From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Danjou Subject: Re: Re: Problem with agenda and diary Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:51:55 -0400 Message-ID: <27844.1300459915@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> References: <87sjul50xb.fsf@rochester.rr.com> <8762rhg8o8.fsf@member.fsf.org> <87vczhep74.fsf@member.fsf.org> <9609.1300382878@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> <26632.1300457062@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=52003 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q0b2G-00055z-Mg for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:52:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q0b28-0001YL-FA for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:52:09 -0400 Received: from vms173019pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.19]:36228) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q0b28-0001Xs-8x for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:52:08 -0400 Received: from alphaville.dokosmarshall.org ([unknown] [173.76.32.106]) by vms173019.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LI90075IDAKSQ10@vms173019.mailsrvcs.net> for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:51:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Nick Dokos In-reply-to: Message from Julien Danjou of "Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:22:39 BST." List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Cc: Tassilo Horn , nicholas.dokos@hp.com, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Julien Danjou wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18 2011, Nick Dokos wrote: > > > That was of course before you took out the concat in 9216453a388 - after > > that change, there is no problem: it was doing (concat nil) ==> "" > > What's weird is that that concat has not been introduced by my recent > patches. It clearly seems wrong, but I don't see why no bug was > triggered before. > Neither do I. I thought the concat was concatenating two things before you took out the prefix-length property, but I took another look and it was doing exactly the same thing before and after that change: what you took out was the second part of the setq. By all accounts, it should have triggered the error long ago. So it is a minor mystery. > Anyhow, if everything is ok now, that's perfect. :) > Yup :) Nick