emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#10884: closed (24.0.93; c-mode + electric-indent-m


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#10884: closed (24.0.93; c-mode + electric-indent-mode + M-j)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:18:02 +0000

Your message dated Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:17:35 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#10884: 24.0.93; c-mode + electric-indent-mode + M-j
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #10884,
regarding 24.0.93; c-mode + electric-indent-mode + M-j
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
10884: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=10884
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: 24.0.93; c-mode + electric-indent-mode + M-j Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 20:36:38 +0100
Recipe from "emacs -Q":
1. Type: M-x c-mode RET
2. Type: M-x electric-indent-mode RET
3. Type: { M-j / / M-j

--> Observed result [1]:
{
  //
    -!-//

--> Expected result [1][2]:
{
  //
  //-!-


--- Footnotes ---

[1] "-!-" indicates the location of point.

[2] I expect that result because the command `M-j' should do its work
well (insert a new line of comment, correctly indented, and leave the
point after the "//") regardless of whether electric-indent-mode minor
mode is active or not.


In GNU Emacs 24.0.93.1 (i386-mingw-nt6.1.7601)
 of 2012-02-14 on DANI-PC
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 `configure --with-gcc (4.6)'

-- 
Dani Moncayo



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#10884: 24.0.93; c-mode + electric-indent-mode + M-j Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:17:35 +0200
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Dani Moncayo <address@hidden> wrote:
> Recipe from "emacs -Q":
> 1. Type: M-x c-mode RET
> 2. Type: M-x electric-indent-mode RET
> 3. Type: { M-j / / M-j
>
> --> Observed result [1]:
> {
>   //
>     -!-//
>
> --> Expected result [1][2]:
> {
>   //
>   //-!-

I can't reproduce this problem using a build of the current master
branch, so I'm closing this bug.

-- 
Dani Moncayo


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]