[BUG] introduced in supercite ?

drv> I don't use supercite myself, but I'm reporting a drv> problem encountered by a friend of mine whom I just convinced drv> to switch to XEmacs. drv> He has the following variable set, which is compliant with drv> what the doc says. drv> (setq sc-attrib-selection-list drv> '(("sc-from-address" drv> ((".*" . (bbdb/sc-consult-attr (sc-mail-field "sc-from-address"))) drv> )))) Been there, done that, it doesn't work with the XEmacs version, and I made the change below, which works for me. I had no idea that that was the original code, or what was going on with the code either, didn't report the bug, and forgot to go back to the problem. :-( Unless either Raymond or Barry has something to say about it, I would say submit a patch to xemacs-patches revert that section to the upstream original. For discussion purposes, here's my diff. The '---' version is the XEmacs package version, '+++' is my change: --- supercite.el~ Thu Dec 2 17:35:18 1999 +++ supercite.el Thu Feb 24 18:14:38 2000 ＠＠ -789,9 +789,11 ＠＠ (thing (cdr ml-elem))) (if (string-match regexp infoval) ;; we found a match, time to return - (setq rtnvalue (if (consp thing) - (car thing) - thing) + ;; this seems much too aggressive + ;(setq rtnvalue (if (consp thing) + ; (car thing) + ; thing) + (setq rtnvalue thing mlist nil alist nil) ;; else we didn't find a match drv> How is it that [XEmacs has] a divergent version of drv> supercite anyway ? It is supposed to be maintained drv> externally. Probably because Bob Weiner wanted some changes for Infodock (see the top of the XEmacs version of the file). Steve Baur also added a function. Why they didn't get integrated upstream I can't guess. -- University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091 _________________ _________________ _________________ _________________ What are those straight lines for? "XEmacs rules."