Hi Thierry,
tbanelwebmin writes:
> Thanks to Uwe Brauer for pointing to this bug.
... and thanks for the analysis and solution, fixed now.
PS: If you can share the solution as a patch, that's easier to track,
test and apply. TIA!
--
Bastien
Ok, Timothy, fair enough
Le 21/07/2021 à 17:07, Timothy a écrit :
> Hi Thierry,
>
> tbanelwebmin writes:
>> I don't know the intention. But the answer may lie in the comment 4
>> lines above:
>>;; Don't overwrite TBLFM, we might use text properties to
>>;; store stuff.
>>
>> In this case,
Hi Thierry,
tbanelwebmin writes:
> I don't know the intention. But the answer may lie in the comment 4
> lines above:
>;; Don't overwrite TBLFM, we might use text properties to
>;; store stuff.
>
> In this case, the intention would be to keep the original "#+TBLFM:"
> instead of inserti
Hi Timothy
I don't know the intention. But the answer may lie in the comment 4
lines above:
;; Don't overwrite TBLFM, we might use text properties to
;; store stuff.
In this case, the intention would be to keep the original "#+TBLFM:"
instead of inserting a fresh new one.
But we are in the
Hi Thierry,
Thanks for this! Looking at the change you suggest, do you know why the
(match-string 2) bit might have been added in the first place? I'm just
wondering if there might be some edge-case adversely affected by this ---
hence trading one bug for another :P
--
Timothy
tbanelwebmin wr
Small bug, small fix.
Suppose we have a table embedded in a begin-end block.
#+begin: aaa :param value
| a | b |
| a | b |
#+end:
Suppose we want to add a formula, with C-c =
We end up with an incorrect result:
#+begin: aaa :param value
| a | 33 |
| a | b |
:param value $2=33
#+end:
The fix:
