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

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

[debbugs-tracker] bug#7693: closed (24.0.50, 23.2.91; advice to kill-new


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#7693: closed (24.0.50, 23.2.91; advice to kill-new causes warning)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 23:44:02 +0000

Your message dated Mon, 16 Oct 2017 08:42:55 +0900
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#7693: 24.0.50, 23.2.91; advice to kill-new causes 
warning
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #7693,
regarding 24.0.50, 23.2.91; advice to kill-new causes warning
to be marked as done.

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


-- 
7693: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=7693
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: 24.0.50, 23.2.91; advice to kill-new causes warning Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 09:44:31 +0900 User-agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)
Maybe it's harmless but surprises me a bit.

(require 'bytecomp)
(defadvice kill-new (before nop activate))

This causes a warning in the "*Compile-Log*" buffer as follows:

Warning: ad-Orig-kill-new called with 3 arguments, but accepts only 1-2

It is because the arglist of `kill-new' is still
(string &optional replace yank-handler), that `advice' recognizes
by using `symbol-function'.  Any idea?

;; Emacs-w3m advises `kill-new' for some reason.



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#7693: 24.0.50, 23.2.91; advice to kill-new causes warning Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 08:42:55 +0900 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (i686-pc-cygwin)
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 02:30:09 -0400, Noam Postavsky wrote:
> Katsumi Yamaoka <address@hidden> writes:

>> Maybe it's harmless but surprises me a bit.

>> (require 'bytecomp)
>> (defadvice kill-new (before nop activate))

>> This causes a warning in the "*Compile-Log*" buffer as follows:

> I tried compiling a file containing the above statements in newer
> (24.3..26) emacs and got no warnings.  Not sure if the behaviour has
> changed, or I misunderstood the report.

I got no warning in some Emacs 23.2 .. 27.0.50 vesions, too.
Though I found no related description in the ChangeLog files,
it might have been fixed by a side effect of something (a major
change in advice.el, etc.).  Otherwise it might have been just
a discrepancy arisen temporarily in Dec 2010.  So, I'm closing
this bug.  Thanks.

Regards,


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

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