From xemacs-m  Sun Mar 30 21:27:01 1997
Received: from mailhost.lanl.gov (mailhost.lanl.gov [128.165.3.12])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA10415
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 21:27:00 -0600 (CST)
Received: from branagh.ta52.lanl.gov (branagh.ta52.lanl.gov [128.165.144.9]) by mailhost.lanl.gov (8.8.5/8.8.3) with SMTP id UAA08114 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 20:27:01 -0700 (MST)
Received: by branagh.ta52.lanl.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id UAA28718; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 20:22:03 -0700
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 20:22:03 -0700
Message-Id: <199703310322.UAA28718@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
From: "John A. Turner" <turner@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] for Re: frame-icon problem (was Re: "live-icon" problem)
In-Reply-To: <QQcjep17788.199703310250@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
References: <199703281524.HAA08084@network-services.uoregon.edu>
	<199703281558.IAA21525@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
	<199703290020.RAA24043@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
	<199703310127.SAA28503@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
	<QQcjep17788.199703310250@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
X-Mailer: VM 6.22 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid
Reply-To: turner@lanl.gov

Kyle Jones writes:
 > John A. Turner writes:
 >  > [...]
 >  > (1000) (specifier/warning) (error "Type of image instance not allowed here" #<image-instance (text) on #<x-device on ":0.0" 0x6f1> "/opt/local/xemacs-19.15-b104/etc/frame-icon/tree.xbm" 0x27c4>)
 > 
 > The problem is the bitmap.
 > 
 > (glyph-image-instance
 >  (make-glyph (concat data-directory "frame-icon/tree.xbm")))
 > 
 > produce a text glyph instead of the mono-pixmap it should
 > generate.
 > 
 > Here's a patch to fix it.

[snip]

Whew.  I was getting tired of talking to myself in public [1].  :)

Thanks a bunch.

Someone should probably make sure that gets on the "patches for 19.15
list", I guess...

[1] I'm not whining... I know they were all shitty reports until the
last one.  Like the saying "if you didn't document it, it didn't
happen", the saying "if you can't reproduce it with -q, it ain't a
bug" [2,3,4] is almost a rule.

[2] Or at least "if you can't reproduce it with -q, it's going to be
very difficult to find" [5].

[3] There should be a shorthand for this.  IYCRIWMQIAAB is too long.
NOQ=NOBUG is a possibility.

[4] Oooh.  Multiple footnotes.  Can your package handle this, Steve?

[5] Or, "if you can't reproduce it with -q, it's either lazy-lock or
efs."

-- 
John Turner
http://www.lanl.gov/home/turner

