stumpwm-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[STUMP] Re: [PATCH] Corrected a bug in program completion


From: Lionel
Subject: [STUMP] Re: [PATCH] Corrected a bug in program completion
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:40:34 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (berkeley-unix)

Lionel <address@hidden> writes:

> Lionel Flandrin <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> * When you wanted to complete a program name (for instance
>>   firef<TAB>), programs matching a substring could be globbed
>>   incorrectly (for instance fire). This commit fixes this.
>> ---
>>  user.lisp |   10 +++++-----
>>  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/user.lisp b/user.lisp
>> index 4b3217e..1bd93e1 100644
>> --- a/user.lisp
>> +++ b/user.lisp
>> @@ -571,11 +571,11 @@ each directory seperated by a colon."
>>  with base. If @var{*program-list*} is nil, run @code{rehash} first."
>>    (or *program-list* (rehash))
>>    (remove-if-not #'(lambda (p)
>> -                 (string= base p
>> -                          :end1 (min (length base)
>> -                                     (length p))
>> -                          :end2 (min (length base)
>> -                                     (length p))))  *program-list*))
>> +                 (if (> (length base) (length p))
>> +                     '()
>> +                     (string= base p
>> +                          :end1 (length base)
>> +                          :end2 (length base))))  *program-list*))
>>  
>>  (defcommand run-shell-command (cmd &optional collect-output-p) ((:shell 
>> "/bin/sh -c "))
>>    "Run the specified shell command. If @var{collect-output-p} is @code{T}
>> -- 
>> 1.5.5
>>
>>
>
> mmmh, please disregard that, it works per chance but it's not how it's
> supposed to work, I'll post a new patch ASAP, sorry for the noise...
>

please disregard the diregarding, I obviously don't know how to read a
diff, it should work (even if the '() is the result of the lambda
predicate, so it might be clearer written "nil"). Oh well...

-- 
Lionel




reply via email to

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