GNU nano - Bugs: bug #44320, invoking external speller always...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #44320: invoking external speller always sets modified flag
Submitter: | Cody A. Taylor <code_m> | ||
Submitted: | Fri 20 Feb 2015 03:47:00 AM UTC | ||
Severity: | 3 - Normal | Status: | Fixed |
Assigned to: | bens | Open/Closed: | Closed |
Fri 20 Mar 2015 11:44:53 AM UTC, comment #5: |
Benno Schulenberg <bens> |
Tue 17 Mar 2015 09:22:38 PM UTC, comment #4: Looks good from a testing perspective.
|
Cody A. Taylor <code_m> |
Tue 17 Mar 2015 08:12:00 PM UTC, comment #3: Fixed in SVN, r5140. Thanks for reporting. |
Benno Schulenberg <bens> |
Sun 15 Mar 2015 07:53:30 PM UTC, comment #2: Proposed patch is attached. |
Benno Schulenberg <bens> |
Sat 21 Feb 2015 12:34:22 PM UTC, comment #1: I've posted the bug to nano-devel:
|
Benno Schulenberg <bens> |
Fri 20 Feb 2015 03:47:00 AM UTC, original submission:
Very simple, any invocation of the speller sets the modified flag regardless if any change was made. Will also set the modified flag if the speller made no suggestions.
|
Cody A. Taylor <code_m> |
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 6 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2015-03-23 | bens | Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |
2015-03-17 | bens | Status | In Progress | Fixed | |
2015-03-15 | bens | Attached File | - | Added timestamping.patch, #33353 | |
Status | None | In Progress | |||
Assigned to | None | bens | |||
2015-02-21 | bens | Summary | invoking speller causes modified flag to be set | invoking external speller always sets modified flag |
Powered by Savane 3.13-02a9.
Corresponding source code
Why a not-equal instead of a greater-than? It simply hadn't occurred to me. :) But thinking about it a bit: a greater-than somehow suggests to me that it also might be a less-than, which naturally (but not obviously) is not the case. My mind only thinks: if the timestamp is no longer the same as what it was, then... set modified. So: unequal.
Thanks for testing.