From xemacs-m  Wed Jul  2 03:21:43 1997
Received: from mikan.jaist.ac.jp (mikan.jaist.ac.jp [150.65.8.6])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA20177
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 03:21:41 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mousai.jaist.ac.jp.jaist.ac.jp (MORIOKA Tomohiko <morioka@jaist.ac.jp>) by mikan.jaist.ac.jp (8.7.5); id RAA22009; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 17:21:34 +0900 (JST)
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Cc: tm-en@chamonix.jaist.ac.jp
Subject: Re: Some Ebola from mel-q.elc
References: <rxsg1u09see.fsf@midnight.ecf.teradyne.com> <m2pvt2kz5o.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
From: morioka@jaist.ac.jp (=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCPGkyLBsoQiAbJEJDTkknGyhC?= /
 MORIOKA Tomohiko)
Organization: JAIST, Hokuriku / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCS0xOJkBoQzwySjNYGyhC?=
  =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCNTs9UUJnM1gxIUJnM1gbKEI=?=
X-MUA: gnus-mime 0.23 (for SEMI), SEMI MIME-View 0.95
X-Face: %yc?f+O/cVKlH*K(H2X/6-d''suf|"1{S:Y0}_9$t@0G3:5M2:-Ck^[8+4^iSLeGc[Ey[WP
 PF]2M#Q9C'u~[=7TJP72J`PZdWvP=s-'-/LhFneC->=ILc~H#$lf2%hLL5U8?psIp`<[>d&@$Pm%~(
 A'"CJ.zuX@TXh\Ra4,b7M&`f"hexU-a4,#X\]Bfp'JI+MGUDRA%_$&UnWAem4}1R"4%uivgn;xFZ%"
 NS>)eCuFYNHc/:W^:{7H>bGQS],x5z[Cy~C;7j#:8y9q|"~9~UWjE<Vm_;)o<Q4S5NweLc(cl7-suY
 NF|_O*xodbmQavM
X-Emacs: 20.3 "Athens" XEmacs  Lucid (beta10) with mule
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI MIME-Edit 0.82)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: 02 Jul 1997 17:21:37 +0900
In-Reply-To: Steven L Baur's message of "01 Jul 1997 18:42:27 -0700"
Message-ID: <s1coh8lyicu.fsf@mousai.jaist.ac.jp>
Lines: 26
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.60 + SEMI patch (r2.1)/XEmacs 20.3(beta10) - "Athens"

>>>>> In <m2pvt2kz5o.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> 
>>>>>	"sb" = Steven L Baur <steve@xemacs.org> wrote:

sb> Thanks for the report.  You have definitely found a bug.  This
sb> patch will need to be applied to SEMI if this code hasn't been
sb> there fixed yet.

  Thanks for the patch.  But I have a question:

sb> --- mel-q.el	1997/06/06 00:57:14	1.3
sb> +++ mel-q.el	1997/07/02 01:33:13
sb> @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@
sb>  			   ))))
sb>      (mapconcat (function
sb>  		(lambda (chr)
sb> -		  (cond ((eq chr 32) "_")
sb> +		  (cond ((eq chr ? ) "_")
sb>  			((or (< chr 32) (< 126 chr)
sb>  			     (memq chr specials)
sb>  			     )

  (< chr 32) and (< 126 chr) seems bad as same as (eq chr 32).  Should 
I fix them?

-- 
tomo.

