tricky explicit interactive verbosity

tricky explicit interactive verbosity

[Emanuel Berg]

From `gnus-message':

    Guideline for numbers:
    1 - error messages, 3 - non-serious error
    messages, 5 - messages for things that take
    a long time, 7 - not very important
    messages on stuff, 9 - messages
    inside loops.

On the other hand `gnus-summary-current-score',
being an interactive function even with
a binding (`V S' in summary), it is a bit
confusing that with `gnus-verbose' at 0, which
you might not think of at the moment, nothing
is outputted even when the user explicitely
calls for the score output!

Perhaps gnus-summary-current-score should
always echo the score when used interactively?
And only when used programmatically refer to the
verbosity level?

(Yes, I get it there will be an inconsistency
at one side or the other no matter how it
is done.)

Source for gnus-summary-current-score

    (defun gnus-summary-current-score (arg)
      "Return the score of the current article.
      With prefix ARG, return the total score of the current (sub)thread."
      (interactive "P")
      (gnus-message 1 "%s" (if arg
                (gnus-thread-total-score
                 (gnus-id-to-thread
                  (mail-header-id (gnus-summary-article-header))))
                (gnus-summary-article-score))))

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: tricky explicit interactive verbosity

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> writes:

> From `gnus-message':
>
>     Guideline for numbers:
>     1 - error messages, 3 - non-serious error
>     messages, 5 - messages for things that take
>     a long time, 7 - not very important
>     messages on stuff, 9 - messages
>     inside loops.
>
> On the other hand `gnus-summary-current-score',
> being an interactive function even with
> a binding (`V S' in summary), it is a bit
> confusing that with `gnus-verbose' at 0, which
> you might not think of at the moment, nothing
> is outputted even when the user explicitely
> calls for the score output!
>
> Perhaps gnus-summary-current-score should
> always echo the score when used interactively?
> And only when used programmatically refer to the
> verbosity level?

It doesn't look like `gnus-summary-current-score' is used
programmatically at all, so I'm not sure why it would need to use
gnus-message in the first place. Other code can (and does) use whichever
of `gnus-summary-article-score' or `gnus-thread-total-score' is
necessary.

I'd be in favor of just using `message'.

Eric

Re: tricky explicit interactive verbosity

[Emanuel Berg]

Eric Abrahamsen wrote:

> It doesn't look like
> `gnus-summary-current-score' is used
> programmatically at all, so I'm not sure why
> it would need to use gnus-message in the
> first place. Other code can (and does) use
> whichever of `gnus-summary-article-score' or
> `gnus-thread-total-score' is necessary.
>
> I'd be in favor of just using `message'.

This brings to mind something I've thought
about, namely how does Gnus development work?
Should one submit patches thru some formal
procedure with the hope it gets accepted, or
report it as a bug, or just mention it here?
This particular issue could be a good exercise
because it is so trivial and harmless to begin
with :)

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: tricky explicit interactive verbosity

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> writes:

> Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>
>> It doesn't look like
>> `gnus-summary-current-score' is used
>> programmatically at all, so I'm not sure why
>> it would need to use gnus-message in the
>> first place. Other code can (and does) use
>> whichever of `gnus-summary-article-score' or
>> `gnus-thread-total-score' is necessary.
>>
>> I'd be in favor of just using `message'.
>
> This brings to mind something I've thought
> about, namely how does Gnus development work?
> Should one submit patches thru some formal
> procedure with the hope it gets accepted, or
> report it as a bug, or just mention it here?
> This particular issue could be a good exercise
> because it is so trivial and harmless to begin
> with :)

I'd say raise questions here, and if you don't get a satisfactory
answer, use `gnus-bug'.

Gnus development is a bit of a conundrum at the moment. Katsumi Yamaoka
seems to have the MIME stuff well in hand, but the rest of it is kind of
a free-for-all. I'm nudging myself in to the group/server area, and also
into picking off low-hanging fruit (eg your report). I intend to keep
doing this until I boff something up royally, and/or someone tells me to
cut it out.

So when I say "I'd be in favor of...", that actually means "I will push
this change to master in three or four days, unless someone says not
to".

Eric

Re: tricky explicit interactive verbosity

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

> Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> writes:
>
>> Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>>
>>> It doesn't look like
>>> `gnus-summary-current-score' is used
>>> programmatically at all, so I'm not sure why
>>> it would need to use gnus-message in the
>>> first place. Other code can (and does) use
>>> whichever of `gnus-summary-article-score' or
>>> `gnus-thread-total-score' is necessary.
>>>
>>> I'd be in favor of just using `message'.
>>
>> This brings to mind something I've thought
>> about, namely how does Gnus development work?
>> Should one submit patches thru some formal
>> procedure with the hope it gets accepted, or
>> report it as a bug, or just mention it here?
>> This particular issue could be a good exercise
>> because it is so trivial and harmless to begin
>> with :)
>
> I'd say raise questions here, and if you don't get a satisfactory
> answer, use `gnus-bug'.
>
> Gnus development is a bit of a conundrum at the moment. Katsumi Yamaoka
> seems to have the MIME stuff well in hand, but the rest of it is kind of
> a free-for-all. I'm nudging myself in to the group/server area, and also
> into picking off low-hanging fruit (eg your report). I intend to keep
> doing this until I boff something up royally, and/or someone tells me to
> cut it out.
>
> So when I say "I'd be in favor of...", that actually means "I will push
> this change to master in three or four days, unless someone says not
> to".

And it's pushed.