bug#2805: marked as done (23.0.90; why is minibuffer-default-add-completions a command?)

[Emacs bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:19:09 +0200
with message-id <873acxbb1u.fsf@jurta.org>
and subject line Re: bug#2805: 23.0.90; why is 
minibuffer-default-add-completions a command?
has caused the Emacs bug report #2805,
regarding 23.0.90; why is minibuffer-default-add-completions a command?
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com
immediately.)


-- 
2805: http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=2805
Emacs Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> 23.0.90; why is minibuffer-default-add-completions a command?
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:22:36 -0700
>
>
>
>
> emacs -Q
>  
> Should `minibuffer-default-add-completions' really be an
> interactive function? I don't see where that feature is
> used anywhere.
>  
>
> In GNU Emacs 23.0.90.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
>  of 2009-02-01 on SOFT-MJASON
> Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
> configured using `configure --with-gcc (3.4)'
>
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#2805: 23.0.90; why is minibuffer-default-add-completions a command?
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:19:09 +0200
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.91 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
>
>
>
>
> >>> Should `minibuffer-default-add-completions' really be an
> >>> interactive function? I don't see where that feature is
> >>> used anywhere.
> >
> >> Hmm, I don't remember why it was implemented as interactive.
> >> But now I see no reason why it should be interactive.
> >
> > It may have been convenient when testing it.  Please remove the
> > (interactive) thingy.
>
> Done.
>
> -- 
> Juri Linkov
> http://www.jurta.org/emacs/
>
>
> --- End Message ---