$ collision

$ collision

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

I recently bound `$' to `gnus-summary-mark-as-spam', but nnmairix uses
this command for its keymap.

So we either have to remove the `gnus-summary-mark-as-spam' binding, or
more the nnmairix keys somewhere else.  Thoughts?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: $ collision

[Reiner Steib]

On Sun, Oct 17 2010, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote:

> I recently bound `$' to `gnus-summary-mark-as-spam', but nnmairix uses
> this command for its keymap.
>
> So we either have to remove the `gnus-summary-mark-as-spam' binding, or
> more the nnmairix keys somewhere else.  Thoughts?

From http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/67055
(<news:v9ej709ie4.fsf@marauder.physik.uni-ulm.de>) ...

,----
| From: Reiner Steib
| Subject: nnmairix and nnir key bindings
| Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
| Date: 2008-06-14 14:54:27 GMT (2 years, 17 weeks, ... ago)
|
| [...]
|
| Here are three alternatives.  I'd suggest to go for (a).  Opinions?
| Other suggestions?
| 
| (a) Establish `G G' as a prefix for all search facilities in Gnus.
|     `G G' is not used in Gnus upto now (beside nnir.el).
| 
|     - Change nnmairix to use the prefix `G G' instead of `G b' in
|       group and instead of `$ ...' in summary mode.
| 
|       Use `G G m ...' (nn*m*airix) for not so frequently used nnmairix
|       commands.
| 
|     - Change nnir.el's `G G' to some other `G G' prefixed key, e.g. 
|       `G G i' (nn*i*r).
| 
| (b) Establish `G B' as a prefix for all search facilities in Gnus.
|     `G B' is not used in Gnus upto now.
| 
|     - Change nnmairix to use the prefix `G B' instead of `G b' in
|       group and instead of `$ ...' in summary mode.
| 
|       Use `G B m ...' (nn*m*airix) for not so frequently used nnmairix
|       commands.
| 
|     - Change nnir.el's `G G' to some `G B' prefixed key, e.g. `G B i'
|       (nn*i*r).
| 
| (c) Establish `G b' as a prefix for all search facilities in Gnus.
|     `G b' is used in Gnus for `gnus-summary-best-unread-article'.
| 
|     - Change nnmairix to use the prefix `G b' instead of `$ ...' in
|       summary mode.
| 
|       Use `G b m ...' (nn*m*airix) for not so frequently used nnmairix
|       commands.
| 
|     - Change nnir.el's `G G' to some `G b' prefixed key, e.g. `G b i'
|       (nn*i*r).
| 
|     - Move the `G b' binding of `gnus-summary-best-unread-article' to
|       `G B'.
`----

David Engster answered:
| I also vote for (a), at least for the current situation where nnir only
| needs one key binding in group and summary mode. However, if there are
| plans to add more commands to nnir, it might be better to use different
| prefixes for both back ends.

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: $ collision

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> writes:

> | (a) Establish `G G' as a prefix for all search facilities in Gnus.
> |     `G G' is not used in Gnus upto now (beside nnir.el).
> | 
> |     - Change nnmairix to use the prefix `G G' instead of `G b' in
> |       group and instead of `$ ...' in summary mode.
> | 
> |       Use `G G m ...' (nn*m*airix) for not so frequently used nnmairix
> |       commands.
> | 
> |     - Change nnir.el's `G G' to some other `G G' prefixed key, e.g. 
> |       `G G i' (nn*i*r).

I think this makes sense, and we'll leave `$' as the spam command.  I
don't use either nnmairix or nnir, so could somebody who does make these
changes?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: $ collision

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:23:04 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LMI> Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> writes:
>> | (a) Establish `G G' as a prefix for all search facilities in Gnus.
>> |     `G G' is not used in Gnus upto now (beside nnir.el).
>> | 
>> |     - Change nnmairix to use the prefix `G G' instead of `G b' in
>> |       group and instead of `$ ...' in summary mode.
>> | 
>> |       Use `G G m ...' (nn*m*airix) for not so frequently used nnmairix
>> |       commands.
>> | 
>> |     - Change nnir.el's `G G' to some other `G G' prefixed key, e.g. 
>> |       `G G i' (nn*i*r).

LMI> I think this makes sense, and we'll leave `$' as the spam command.  I
LMI> don't use either nnmairix or nnir, so could somebody who does make these
LMI> changes?

I don't use them either so it's hard for me to test correctness.  Should
be a pretty simple change though.

Ted

Re: $ collision

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> I don't use them either so it's hard for me to test correctness.  Should
> be a pretty simple change though.

I've now moved nnmairix to G G.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: $ collision

[Richard Riley]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> I recently bound `$' to `gnus-summary-mark-as-spam', but nnmairix uses
> this command for its keymap.
>
> So we either have to remove the `gnus-summary-mark-as-spam' binding, or
> more the nnmairix keys somewhere else.  Thoughts?

Is M-d not the standard for mark as spam? Why another binding that
causes conflicts?

Re: $ collision

[Russ Allbery]

Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> writes:
> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

>> I recently bound `$' to `gnus-summary-mark-as-spam', but nnmairix uses
>> this command for its keymap.

>> So we either have to remove the `gnus-summary-mark-as-spam' binding, or
>> more the nnmairix keys somewhere else.  Thoughts?

> Is M-d not the standard for mark as spam? Why another binding that
> causes conflicts?

I was the one who requested that.  There are two main reasons.  First,
marking things as spam is a very common action (at least for me, and I
think for anyone who uses the spam filtering bits), and M-d is two
keystrokes if one is using Emacs in an xterm, which I often do when I'm
travelling.  Second, nearly all the other marks (!, ?, #, *, etc.) can be
added by pressing the character for the mark, so it seemed to make sense
for consistency.

I don't really care what that one key is, although $ does seem to make the
most sense; I mostly just wanted to have one key I could press to mark
things as spam.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Re: $ collision

[Richard Riley]

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:

> Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> writes:
>> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
>
>>> I recently bound `$' to `gnus-summary-mark-as-spam', but nnmairix uses
>>> this command for its keymap.
>
>>> So we either have to remove the `gnus-summary-mark-as-spam' binding, or
>>> more the nnmairix keys somewhere else.  Thoughts?
>
>> Is M-d not the standard for mark as spam? Why another binding that
>> causes conflicts?
>
> I was the one who requested that.  There are two main reasons.  First,
> marking things as spam is a very common action (at least for me, and I
> think for anyone who uses the spam filtering bits), and M-d is two
> keystrokes if one is using Emacs in an xterm, which I often do when I'm
> travelling.  Second, nearly all the other marks (!, ?, #, *, etc.) can be
> added by pressing the character for the mark, so it seemed to make sense
> for consistency.
>
> I don't really care what that one key is, although $ does seem to make the
> most sense; I mostly just wanted to have one key I could press to mark
> things as spam.

keyboard dependant I guess. $ is a shifted key for me and M-d seems
pretty instantaneous for someone using and familiar emacs.

Re: $ collision

[Adam Sjøgren]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:28:05 +0200, Richard wrote:

> keyboard dependant I guess. $ is a shifted key for me and M-d seems
> pretty instantaneous for someone using and familiar emacs.

Not having a key mapping to meta in an xterm is quite common, I'd think?
(So you have to type ESC d to get M-d).

I think it makes a lot of sense to have the character used to indicate
the mark also be used to set the mark (the ones I use most being !, *,
and #)?


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "Few things are less comforting than a tiger who's up        Adam Sjøgren
  too late."                                             asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: $ collision

[Russ Allbery]

Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> writes:

> keyboard dependant I guess. $ is a shifted key for me and M-d seems
> pretty instantaneous for someone using and familiar emacs.

I don't believe it's keyboard-dependent, but I could be wrong.  I've never
had meta survive ssh -> xterm -> emacs, which forces two keystrokes (ESC
d) instead of one shifted keystroke.  It's quite a bit slower when marking
multiple messages.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Re: $ collision

[Richard Riley]

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:

> Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> writes:
>
>> keyboard dependant I guess. $ is a shifted key for me and M-d seems
>> pretty instantaneous for someone using and familiar emacs.
>
> I don't believe it's keyboard-dependent, but I could be wrong.  I've never
> had meta survive ssh -> xterm -> emacs, which forces two keystrokes (ESC
> d) instead of one shifted keystroke.  It's quite a bit slower when marking
> multiple messages.

Maybe I'm missing something but M-<key> works fine. In this case M-d. M
not working would render emacs useless in a terminal I would have
thought. Possibly I get better results because its urxvt in tmux? I dont
recall M-d causing any issues in any other setups - I did have issues
with functions keys however! I tried getting me head around termcap etc
but, well, chickened out...

Still, if $ is popular then grand ;) I just wonder why set another key
where there is already another incumbent. Leave it to the individual.

Also the spam handling can be set for different marks on a per group
basis I believe. Not that I ever tried it.

,----
| [ ] Spam mark choices:
|     Set:
|     [ ] gnus-spam-mark
|                 Mark used for spam articles.
|     [ ] gnus-killed-mark
|                 Mark used for killed articles.
|     [ ] gnus-kill-file-mark
|                 Mark used for articles killed by kill files.
|     [ ] gnus-low-score-mark
|                 Mark used for articles with a low score.
|     Marks considered spam. [Hide Rest]    
|     Such articles will be processed as spam on group exit.  When nil, the global
|     spam-spam-marks variable takes precedence.
`----

So a kill could also result in spam processing.

best regards

r.

Re: $ collision

[Russ Allbery]

Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> writes:

> Maybe I'm missing something but M-<key> works fine. In this case M-d.

I promise, it doesn't me.  Apparently it works for you with the particular
set of terminal emulators that you use, but it doesn't work for me running
ssh inside a bog-standard xterm and never has in the fifteen plus years
that I've been using Emacs.

> M not working would render emacs useless in a terminal I would have
> thought.

That's why it's always been possible in Emacs to simulate meta by pressing
ESC and then the character.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Re: $ collision

[Richard Riley]

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:

> Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> writes:
>
>> Maybe I'm missing something but M-<key> works fine. In this case M-d.
>
> I promise, it doesn't me.  Apparently it works for you with the particular
> set of terminal emulators that you use, but it doesn't work for me running
> ssh inside a bog-standard xterm and never has in the fifteen plus years
> that I've been using Emacs.
>
>> M not working would render emacs useless in a terminal I would have
>> thought.
>
> That's why it's always been possible in Emacs to simulate meta by pressing
> ESC and then the character.

I guess this is where I am getting confused. Esc is the meta here or I
have certainly always thought of it as that .. but that to one side for
a moment : the rest of the emacs driving keys use M so do you redefine all
those or just use Esc as the Meta? Don't misunderstand me, I'm not
objecting per-se to anything I am just trying to understand why existing
keys that people use for Mairix are remapped to add a facility key to
something already mapped. I would have thought it fairly easy for
experienced emacs users to make their own convenient mappings when using
emacs hostile shells as you obviously are. I used emacs -nw for quite a
while but reverted to X in the end because it was so much easier to use
org mode and I had better abilities to remap Function and S/Function
keys and yes, I did experience different emacs "friendliness" depending
on which term I used.

regards

r.

Re: $ collision

[Russ Allbery]

Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> writes:

> I guess this is where I am getting confused. Esc is the meta here or I
> have certainly always thought of it as that .. but that to one side for
> a moment : the rest of the emacs driving keys use M so do you redefine all
> those or just use Esc as the Meta?

I use ESC as meta, but most meta sequences in Emacs don't have to be
repeated multiple times.  The only other one I ever remember noticing this
with is M-v, and I don't use that anywhere near as much as marking
messages as spam.  In order to have M-d be a single shifted keystroke,
there has to be a shift key on the keyboard that can successfully act as
the meta shift key (not the ESC prefix workaround), which is true in X but
not (for me at least) in an xterm through ssh to emacs -nw on the other
side.

If one is marking multiple messages as spam, it's much more annoying to
have to alternate between two keys (and ESC is often in an awkward
location) than to just repeatedly use the same key, possibly shifted.

> Don't misunderstand me, I'm not objecting per-se to anything I am just
> trying to understand why existing keys that people use for Mairix are
> remapped to add a facility key to something already mapped.

I've never even heard if nnmairix before the last month and certainly
wasn't aware of it when I proposed the additional key binding, and I
suspect Lars wasn't aware either.

I don't use it and therefore don't particularly care; I can continue to
locally map $ to the right thing since I don't use nnmairix.  But it
seemed like it would make mark handling more consistent.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Re: $ collision

[Richard Riley]

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:

> Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> writes:
>
>> I guess this is where I am getting confused. Esc is the meta here or I
>> have certainly always thought of it as that .. but that to one side for
>> a moment : the rest of the emacs driving keys use M so do you redefine all
>> those or just use Esc as the Meta?
>
> I use ESC as meta, but most meta sequences in Emacs don't have to be
> repeated multiple times.  The only other one I ever remember noticing this
> with is M-v, and I don't use that anywhere near as much as marking
> messages as spam.  In order to have M-d be a single shifted keystroke,
> there has to be a shift key on the keyboard that can successfully act as
> the meta shift key (not the ESC prefix workaround), which is true in X but
> not (for me at least) in an xterm through ssh to emacs -nw on the other
> side.
>
> If one is marking multiple messages as spam, it's much more annoying to
> have to alternate between two keys (and ESC is often in an awkward
> location) than to just repeatedly use the same key, possibly shifted.
>
>> Don't misunderstand me, I'm not objecting per-se to anything I am just
>> trying to understand why existing keys that people use for Mairix are
>> remapped to add a facility key to something already mapped.
>
> I've never even heard if nnmairix before the last month and certainly
> wasn't aware of it when I proposed the additional key binding, and I
> suspect Lars wasn't aware either.
>
> I don't use it and therefore don't particularly care; I can continue to
> locally map $ to the right thing since I don't use nnmairix.  But it
> seemed like it would make mark handling more consistent.

That would explain why the change wouldn't concern you I guess. I did
use nnmairix for a long time until I discovered (recently) the beauty of
fts_squat in local dovecot server and now use nnir search. 

Re: $ collision

[James Cloos]

>>>>> "RA" == Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:

RA> but it doesn't work for me running ssh inside a bog-standard xterm
RA> and never has in the fifteen plus years that I've been using Emacs.

You want the meta-sends-escape option to make it work.

It is in the Ctrl-<left-click> menu, or search for metaSendsEscape in
the xterm(1) man page.

Alternatively, depending on how your keyboard is configured, you may
instead need to enable the altSendsEscape option.

One or the other should make meta work in Emacs.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Re: $ collision

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> writes:

> It is in the Ctrl-<left-click> menu, or search for metaSendsEscape in
> the xterm(1) man page.
>
> Alternatively, depending on how your keyboard is configured, you may
> instead need to enable the altSendsEscape option.
>
> One or the other should make meta work in Emacs.

This used to work for me, but with Debian Squeeze, I'm totally unable to
get xterm to send escape when I use the Meta key.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: $ collision

[Andreas Schwab]

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:

> Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> writes:
>
>> Maybe I'm missing something but M-<key> works fine. In this case M-d.
>
> I promise, it doesn't me.  Apparently it works for you with the particular
> set of terminal emulators that you use, but it doesn't work for me running
> ssh inside a bog-standard xterm and never has in the fifteen plus years
> that I've been using Emacs.

Try setting the xterm resource .vt100.metaSendsEscape to true.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: $ collision

[Steinar Bang]

>>>>> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>:

> I don't believe it's keyboard-dependent, but I could be wrong.  I've never
> had meta survive ssh -> xterm -> emacs, which forces two keystrokes (ESC
> d) instead of one shifted keystroke.

That works for me.  I work with "emacs -nw" on some slow SSH
connections, and I do the ssh from an xterm.  And I can use M-commands
on that emacs, without having to resort to ESC.

Works from KDE konsole and from gnome-terminal, as well as from xterm (I
just verified).

Re: $ collision

[Steinar Bang]

>>>>> Steinar Bang <sb@dod.no>:

>>>>> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>:
>> I don't believe it's keyboard-dependent, but I could be wrong.  I've never
>> had meta survive ssh -> xterm -> emacs, which forces two keystrokes (ESC
>> d) instead of one shifted keystroke.

> That works for me.  I work with "emacs -nw" on some slow SSH
> connections, and I do the ssh from an xterm.  And I can use M-commands
> on that emacs, without having to resort to ESC.

> Works from KDE konsole and from gnome-terminal, as well as from xterm (I
> just verified).

The xterm I tried with was xterm-192-8.el4 on RHEL4, which... isn't
exactly the newest and shiniest...

I did the ssh command with the -Y flag, but that shouldn't affect this.

Re: $ collision

[Richard Riley]

Steinar Bang <sb@dod.no> writes:

>>>>>> Steinar Bang <sb@dod.no>:
>
>>>>>> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>:
>>> I don't believe it's keyboard-dependent, but I could be wrong.  I've never
>>> had meta survive ssh -> xterm -> emacs, which forces two keystrokes (ESC
>>> d) instead of one shifted keystroke.
>
>> That works for me.  I work with "emacs -nw" on some slow SSH
>> connections, and I do the ssh from an xterm.  And I can use M-commands
>> on that emacs, without having to resort to ESC.
>
>> Works from KDE konsole and from gnome-terminal, as well as from xterm (I
>> just verified).
>
> The xterm I tried with was xterm-192-8.el4 on RHEL4, which... isn't
> exactly the newest and shiniest...
>
> I did the ssh command with the -Y flag, but that shouldn't affect this.
>

I am assuming here that Russ means Esc Esc d? Since M-d or Esc d is two
keys as is a shifted $. I also just double checked my setup , a tmux
with a urxvt running bash opened, sshd into a remote debian ran emacs
-nw and M-d works in that set up too. The wonders of different systems
and something as convoluted as termcap I guess.

Re: $ collision

[Russ Allbery]

Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> writes:

> I am assuming here that Russ means Esc Esc d?

No, I didn't.

> Since M-d or Esc d is two keys as is a shifted $.

You don't seem to understand what I mean by one keystroke, but I think
everyone else does.  I'm not sure how best to explain it; I don't seem to
have the correct words.

It looks like there's an xterm Xresources setting to tell xterm to
translate M-d into ESC d.  Thanks everyone!

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Re: $ collision

[Richard Riley]

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:

> Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> writes:
>
>> I am assuming here that Russ means Esc Esc d?
>
> No, I didn't.
>
>> Since M-d or Esc d is two keys as is a shifted $.
>
> You don't seem to understand what I mean by one keystroke, but I think
> everyone else does.  I'm not sure how best to explain it; I don't seem
> to

Maybe I'm unique then as no I dont understand what your definition of
"one keystroke is". I dont know. How is Esc d more key strokes than M-d
for me or Shift $ ?

> have the correct words.
>
> It looks like there's an xterm Xresources setting to tell xterm to
> translate M-d into ESC d.  Thanks everyone!

It seems to have been a constructive thread then.

cheers

r.

Re: $ collision

[Adam Sjøgren]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 07:17:25 +0200, Richard wrote:

> How is Esc d more key strokes than M-d for me or Shift $ ?

ESC d is "press the escape key, then press the d key" → two keystrokes.

M-d is "hold down the meta key while pressing the d key" → one
keystroke.

On my keyboard "$" is "hold down the right alt key while pressing the 4
key" → one keystroke.

I think "holding down a (modifier-)key while pressing another key" is
sometimes called "a chorded keystroke"?

I think this explicitly puts this thread to bed.


   :-),

    Adam

-- 
 "Few things are less comforting than a tiger who's up        Adam Sjøgren
  too late."                                             asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: $ collision

[Adam Sjøgren]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:34:30 +0200, Steinar wrote:

> That works for me.  I work with "emacs -nw" on some slow SSH
> connections, and I do the ssh from an xterm.  And I can use M-commands
> on that emacs, without having to resort to ESC.

> Works from KDE konsole and from gnome-terminal, as well as from xterm (I
> just verified).

If I try to type M-x (hold down the left alt button, press the x button)
in an xterm with "emacs -nw" in it, I get "ø" in the buffer. Esc x
works as expected.

It must be keymapping/locale-dependent.


  Best regards,

     Adam

-- 
 "Few things are less comforting than a tiger who's up        Adam Sjøgren
  too late."                                             asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: $ collision

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:09:22 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LMI> I recently bound `$' to `gnus-summary-mark-as-spam', but nnmairix uses
LMI> this command for its keymap.

We discussed this back in 2003 or so.  Everyone agreed `$' made sense
but for various reasons the `M-d' binding prevailed.

FWIW I would make `$ $' the command.  It has wonderful mnemonic value
and will fit right in with the nnmairix bindings.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:33:25 +0200 Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> wrote: 

RR> Is M-d not the standard for mark as spam? Why another binding that
RR> causes conflicts?

It's not mnemonic at all.  I personally use `C-s'.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:33:14 +0200 asjo@koldfront.dk (Adam Sjøgren) wrote: 

AS> I think it makes a lot of sense to have the character used to indicate
AS> the mark also be used to set the mark (the ones I use most being !, *,
AS> and #)?

That's the best argument in favor of `$'.  But I think `$ $' is a nice
way of saying "spam spam spam spam spam spam wonderful spam"[1] without
angering the millions of nnmairix users out there :)

Ted

[1] (bloody Vikings)

Re: $ collision

[Richard Riley]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:09:22 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> wrote:
>
> LMI> I recently bound `$' to `gnus-summary-mark-as-spam', but nnmairix uses
> LMI> this command for its keymap.
>
> We discussed this back in 2003 or so.  Everyone agreed `$' made sense
> but for various reasons the `M-d' binding prevailed.
>
> FWIW I would make `$ $' the command.  It has wonderful mnemonic value
> and will fit right in with the nnmairix bindings.
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:33:25 +0200 Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> RR> Is M-d not the standard for mark as spam? Why another binding that
> RR> causes conflicts?
>
> It's not mnemonic at all.  I personally use `C-s'.

It is ... "dump/delete" ;)

C-s is isearch...

God love emacs ;)

Re: $ collision

[David Engster]

Ted Zlatanov writes:
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:09:22 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 
>
> LMI> I recently bound `$' to `gnus-summary-mark-as-spam', but nnmairix uses
> LMI> this command for its keymap.
>
> We discussed this back in 2003 or so.  Everyone agreed `$' made sense
> but for various reasons the `M-d' binding prevailed.

I dimly remember that '$' as a prefix key didn't work in xemacs. Maybe
that has changed, though.

I don't feel strongly about those bindings at all, so if some benevolent
dictator decides this, it'll be fine with me.

-David