11:15 p.m.
>>>> Rodney Sparapani <rsparapa(a)mcw.edu> writes:
Rodney> After a little more testing, the vc.el change does not seem to
Rodney> be necessary any more. Therefore, the minimal change
Rodney> necessary is:
During testing of this patch I got a little confused. You see I'm new
to the vc-directory mode so I suspected erroneously(!?) that when I
got no files listed in an unmodified directory that there was
something wrong. I was expecting a full directory list but with all
files listed as unmodified. But after checking with Emacs if found
that the empty listing is just how it is supposed to be. Right?
If that is the case I don't seem to need the patch to dired-sort-other
at all. It works for me without it. Do you have a use case that
illustrates when the patch is needed so that I can recreate the
problem?
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
2:43 p.m.
New subject: Why I attempted to port dired/VC from emacs
Mats Lidell wrote:
>>>>> Rodney Sparapani <rsparapa(a)mcw.edu>
writes:
>>>>>
Rodney> After a little more testing, the vc.el change does not seem to
Rodney> be necessary any more. Therefore, the minimal change
Rodney> necessary is:
During testing of this patch I got a little confused. You see I'm new
to the vc-directory mode so I suspected erroneously(!?) that when I
got no files listed in an unmodified directory that there was
something wrong. I was expecting a full directory list but with all
files listed as unmodified. But after checking with Emacs if found
that the empty listing is just how it is supposed to be. Right?
Right.
If that is the case I don't seem to need the patch to
dired-sort-other
at all. It works for me without it. Do you have a use case that
illustrates when the patch is needed so that I can recreate the
problem?
Yours
To list all files requires a 2nd call to vc-directory (as you noted;
I never would have thought of that). Without this patch, then you get
the error that I reported (and solved) on 4/22:
Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument natnump -1)
dired-sort-other((?a ?l ?R))
dired-internal-noselect("/home/rsparapa/svn/ess/" "-alR"
vc-dired-mode)
vc-directory("/home/rsparapa/svn/ess/" nil)
call-interactively(vc-directory)
command-execute(vc-directory t)
execute-extended-command(nil)
call-interactively(execute-extended-command)
And, I think that this is really the problem that Issue 491 is all about.
The "mangled" list is simply nil which it should never be.
--
Rodney Sparapani Center for Patient Care & Outcomes Research (PCOR)
Sr. Biostatistician http://www.mcw.edu/pcor
4 wheels good, 2 wheels better! Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW)
WWLD?: What Would Lombardi Do? Milwaukee, WI, USA
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
10:03 p.m.
New subject: Why I attempted to port dired/VC from emacs
>>>> Rodney Sparapani <rsparapa(a)mcw.edu> writes:
Rodney> To list all files requires a 2nd call to vc-directory (as you
Rodney> noted; I never would have thought of that).
Testing this with Emacs "22.3.1" gives quite different
results. Results that seems to be more intuitively correct IMHO. In
Emacs vc-directory always give you a view of modified
files. Switching to dired on the same directory gives you a new buffer
in dired mode. So that you can se ordinary dired listing there and the
updated files in det vc-directory buffer.
I don't get this in XEmacs. Trying dired on the same directory that I
have just visited doesn't give the normal dired listing in a new
buffer. Using vc-directory again does show all files but moving back
to the version view doesn't seem possible without deleting the buffer
first. (With your patch going back again works so in that case it
seems to do better. The resulting dired listing isn't a normal dired
listing though since the buffer i still under "Dired under
<versioningsystem> mode". So I don't like it.)
Anyway. There seems to be a few more things to fix but it does work
better as it is now. Don't you think the Emacs behavior is like it
really should be? So that you can have both a versioned dired listing
and a normal dired listing for the same directory at the same time but
in different buffers?
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
10:15 p.m.
New subject: Why I attempted to port dired/VC from emacs
Mats Lidell wrote:
Anyway. There seems to be a few more things to fix but it does work
better as it is now. Don't you think the Emacs behavior is like it
really should be? So that you can have both a versioned dired listing
and a normal dired listing for the same directory at the same time but
in different buffers?
Yours
I suppose the Emacs way is best. But, it is very difficult to see
where these differences are coming from. I really don't understand
the dired/vc code per se. I just try to fix the obvious bugs and see
what happens. Having said that, I'm pretty happy that it actually
works now. I had just about given up hope.
--
Rodney Sparapani Center for Patient Care & Outcomes Research (PCOR)
Sr. Biostatistician http://www.mcw.edu/pcor
4 wheels good, 2 wheels better! Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW)
WWLD?: What Would Lombardi Do? Milwaukee, WI, USA
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
5471
days inactive
5472
days old
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Rodney Sparapani -
The XEmacs Package Smoketest