Re: message-simplify-subject too coupled with reply (and not extensible)

[Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>]

"Garreau, Alexandre" <galex-713@galex-713.eu> writes:

> On 2018/10/28 at 19:16, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>> "Garreau, Alexandre" <galex-713@galex-713.eu> writes:
>>> But the main problem is, as this function call manually each of these
>>> four functions, in the special case of `message-strip-subject-re', it
>>> removes excedentary “Re:”… and add a new one!  so in the end,
>>> `message-reply' doesn’t do that: that fills terribly wrong.
>>> `message-reply' should add a “Re:” (that’s the least expectable from it,
>>> it’s confusing it is not it that does it), and
>>> `message-simplify-subject' should do what its name says, so that to be
>>> really useful: simplify subject, not prepare it for another different
>>> function (namely, `message-reply')!
>>
>> I'm less certain about this. It's one of those cases where probably no
>> one remembers why it is the way it is, and no one wants to touch it
>> because who knows how things might suddenly break.
>
> I’m pretty sure el-search can be used so that to quickly check how is
> it: I checked in all gnus, and the symbol `gnus-simplify-subject' is
> only used in `message-reply'.  So unless you do strange stuff with
> symbol names twiddling or other complex stuff (I believe you are
> confident enough in not abusing such things in gnus) so to get it
> without naming it, it is okay. ^^

I'm convinced!

>> If I were you I would report two separate bugs, so that the first had
>> a better chance of being accepted.
>
> These are separate problems anyway.

Right.


[...]

>>> Then, `message-reply' should replace “(message-simplify-subject
>>> subject)” with “(concat "Re: " (message-simplify-subject subject))”, and
>>> also, `message-strip-list-identifiers should get a “unless (equal
>>> gnus-list-identifiers "")” around the body of its outer `let' (not
>>> mandatory, but otherwise `message-strip-list-identifiers' might remove a
>>> “Re:”, what `message-strip-subject-re' should do, even if it wasn’t
>>> asked by the user by being put in `message-simplify-subject-functions').
>>
>> And `message-strip-subject-trailing-was' already checks
>> `message-subject-trailing-was-query', so the extra check there is
>> redundant, which would mean `message-simplify-subject' really could just
>> be a simple reduction function.
>
> “there” where? sorry I don’t understand the relationship with the
> preceding quoted text.

Sorry, that wasn't clear -- I just meant that `message-simplify-subject'
currently does a few extra checks (that
`message-subject-trailing-was-query' and `gnus-list-identifiers' are
non-nil), but that the first check is already redundant, and the second
can be made redundant by your earlier suggestion.

>>> May I also suggest, for consistency, to rename
>>> `message-strip-list-identifiers' to
>>> `message-strip-subject-list-identifiers'. I guess it isn’t used
>>> elsewhere than in message.el.
>>>
>>> It is also shorter, in total.
>>
>> I would file a couple of bug reports.
>
> So should I have bugreported from the beginning? Btw, do Gnus bugs
> belong to bug-gnu-emacs mailing-list too? or is there something separate
> about Gnus there too? I’m sometimes confused about how much tight is
> Gnus to Emacs.

This sort of very specific suggestion could have gone in a bug report to
begin with, yes, though it doesn't matter too much. Gnus bugs are
reported along with Emacs bugs. You can also use `gnus-bug' to do the
report, in which case the bug will also be reported in the "Gnus
package", and you can see them here:

https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/pkgreport.cgi?package=gnus

But tbh I don't know if that's the right thing to do, since Gnus isn't
its own package anymore. It used to be, but is no longer, hence the
confusion.

Eric