From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alan Schmitt <alan.schmitt@polytechnique.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] ox-koma-letter.el: subject changes [2/4]
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:24:11 +0200
Message-ID: <m24ndwu76s.fsf@polytechnique.org>
References: <87wqqusder.fsf@pank.eu> <87obc6scty.fsf@pank.eu>
	<m2hahxtzws.fsf@polytechnique.org> <87y5b9o6ij.fsf@pank.eu>
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 ([208.118.235.92]:33736)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alan.schmitt@polytechnique.org>) id 1Uegvf-0005qt-GU
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 21 May 2013 03:24:16 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alan.schmitt@polytechnique.org>) id 1Uegve-0003eQ-1E
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 21 May 2013 03:24:15 -0400
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.104]:48582)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alan.schmitt@polytechnique.org>) id 1Uegvd-0003e5-R3
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 21 May 2013 03:24:13 -0400
In-reply-to: <87y5b9o6ij.fsf@pank.eu>
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: Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Rasmus writes:

> I found a "bug" in that the subject variable should be a list cf. the
> KOMA manual.  This patch fixes this.
>
> It's pretty complex for something so simple, and I might be inclined
> to admit to the "put it in a LCO"-file approach might be better.

I'd really like to have a second opinion on this. Viktor?

Best,

Alan