Re: Better definition for `gnus-article-refer-article'

[kai.grossjohann@uni-duisburg.de (Kai Großjohann)]

sigurd@12move.de (Karl Pflästerer) writes:

> I noticed that the buttons react at the moment smarter if you press them
> at a message-id in the article buffer than `gnus-article-refer-article'.
> I looked at the definition for that function and wrote it a bit
> different. What do you mean? IMO I must have forgotten something because
> it seems to easy. I don't think it's necessary to check if we have a
> message-id around point because a user would only use that function for
> a message-id.
>
> (defun gnus-article-refer-article ()
>   "Read article specified by message-id around point."
>   (interactive)
>   (let ((point (point)) message-id)
>     (re-search-backward "<?news:\\|<" nil t)
>     (cond ((re-search-forward gnus-button-mid-or-mail-regexp nil t)
> 	    (setq message-id (concat "<" (match-string 0) ">"))
> 	    (goto-char point)
> 	    (set-buffer gnus-summary-buffer)
> 	    (gnus-summary-refer-article message-id))
> 	  (t
> 	    (goto-char point)
> 	    (error "No references around point")))))

In principle, it's a good idea.  There could be a problem, though.
Have you tried it on buttons looking like <foo@bar.baz>?  I think it
might set message-id to something like <<foo@bar.baz>> -- one set of
angle brackets too many.
-- 
A preposition is not a good thing to end a sentence with.