From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/23801 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lloyd Zusman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: [PATCH for 0.91] (Was: Still having mail problems with version 0.88) Date: 04 Jul 1999 18:41:57 -0400 Organization: Linux Hippopotamus Preserve Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <87g134jejy.fsf@pc-hrvoje.srce.hr> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035161470 4020 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 00:51:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 00:51:10 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from farabi.math.uh.edu (farabi.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.57]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA28866 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 18:47:34 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by farabi.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAB28676; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 17:43:55 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Sun, 04 Jul 1999 17:43:18 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27362 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 17:43:07 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from home.ljz.net (gnus@home.ljz.net [207.198.184.200]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA28783 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 18:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: (from gnus@localhost) by home.ljz.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA32322; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 18:41:58 -0400 Original-To: ding@gnus.org X-Face: "!ga1s|?LNLE3MeeeEYs(%LIl9q[xV9!j4#xf4!**BFW_ihlOb;:Slb>)vy>CJM writes: > Lloyd Zusman writes: > > > Well, I actually had some time this weekend, so I ended up doing > > more than that: I traced through the code in version 0.91 and > > finally found what was causing the problem. The following patch to > > pgnus-0.91 shows what I did to fix this. > > Judging your patch, it appears that `mail-source-callback' can return > nil, right? The fact that it returned nil is indeed what broke my code, but I'm wondering if this is proper. I'm wondering if perhaps the fact that it returned nil is actually a symptom of a deeper problem. What do any of you folks think? > Then I guess you could modify the code like this: > > - (incf found (mail-source-callback callback file)))) > + (incf found (or (mail-source-callback callback file) 0)))) Well, the final line would probably have to be this, instead ... > + (incf found (or (mail-source-callback callback file) 1)))) ... since `incf' defaults to treating its final argument as a `1' if it's missing. But otherwise, I agree with your suggestion. > [ ... ] -- Lloyd Zusman ljz@asfast.com