Re: gnus-agent typo?

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

prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:

> You guessed that the original logic was buggy, and I guess the same,
> because it seems odd to treat seen and recent articles similarly.
> (Could someone who knows what that code is really supposed to do
> comment here?)  We would expect *un*seen and recent articles to be
> treated similarly, since they're semantically similar - but since
> they're implemented differently (recent is a normal mark; unseen is
> the lack of the seen mark), the code should look different than it
> does now.  So to fix the apparent bug, but otherwise produce the same
> range, we should take the initial list of article and add (seen -
> recent).  (This is different from ((initial + seen) - recent).)

The original code is supposed to add ticked and dormant messages, I
think.  And messages with other marks.  Except for the unseen and the
recent mark.

I think adding (seen - recent) does not achieve the objective of
abstaining from adding unseen articles.

What the code does is to go through the list of ticked articles and
add them.  Then it goes through the list of dormant articles and adds
them.

But it should not go through the list of unseen articles and add
them.  So it should also not go through the list of seen articles and
remove them.

See?

The original logic was correct after all, even if it is
counter-intuitive.

kai
-- 
~/.signature is: umop ap!sdn    (Frank Nobis)