From: Bernd R. <ber...@ar...> - 2013-09-15 10:10:14
|
In rst.el, rst-get-next-adornment, the adornment hierarchyis searched in reverse order if the reverse argument is nil, and in the normal order, if the reverse argument is non-nil. I think that should be in the other way. |
From: Stefan M. <sm...@oe...> - 2013-09-22 12:57:27
|
Hi Bernd! Last week (7 days ago) Bernd Rellermeyer wrote: > In rst.el, rst-get-next-adornment, the adornment hierarchyis searched > in reverse order if the reverse argument is nil, and in the normal order, > if the reverse argument is non-nil. I think that should be in the other way. I agree that this part of the code is a bit smelly. I am in a bigger process to refactor a lot of the code in `rst.el`. In my (unpublished) version this parameter is called `down` which probably better reflects the meaning. Are there any practical consequences of your observation? Grüße Stefan |
From: Bernd R. <ber...@ar...> - 2013-09-25 17:40:46
|
Hi Stefan, there are no practical consequences. I often call rst-adjust and was wondering about the order. Grüße Bernd Am 22.09.2013 um 14:44 schrieb Stefan Merten: > Hi Bernd! > > Last week (7 days ago) Bernd Rellermeyer wrote: >> In rst.el, rst-get-next-adornment, the adornment hierarchyis searched >> in reverse order if the reverse argument is nil, and in the normal order, >> if the reverse argument is non-nil. I think that should be in the other way. > > I agree that this part of the code is a bit smelly. > > I am in a bigger process to refactor a lot of the code in `rst.el`. In > my (unpublished) version this parameter is called `down` which > probably better reflects the meaning. > > Are there any practical consequences of your observation? > > > Grüße > > Stefan |