Re: Suggestion for additional %B-leaf type

[Martin Kretzschmar <Martin.Kretzschmar@inf.tu-dresden.de>]

[I guess I need some Message training. Thought I had sent this 7 hours ago]
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
> Martin Kretzschmar <Martin.Kretzschmar@inf.tu-dresden.de> writes:
>
>>  Question 1: Is it, under any circumstances possible that an adopted
>>  article has brothers?
>
> Sure.  If the parent is missing, all the children will be adopted by
> the eldest sibling.

Oops. I mixed up the real relationship between those articles and
their representation in %B formats. With %B there never seem to be two
adopted articles with the same parents, each adopted article is
indented more than it's brother from the line above. Is this a bug or
a feature of %B?

I use %B as a replacement for %I. Looking closer I see that %I does
not indent adopted articles like %B, it's more like the real
relationship between them.

>>  Question 2: Could this be integrated into Oort?
>
> I don't know what mutt's thingamabob looks like.  Could you explain
> what this is supposed to do?  And can't this be implemented by format
> string specs instead of a new variable?

With the patch, the adopted articles' branches of the tree look
different from non-adopted articles'. Compare these two threads
(the left column has obviously %B in it, the right %I)

  [  15: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]              [  15: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]
  \*> <  22: Kai Großjohann         >              <  22: Kai Großjohann         >
    \*> <  13: Per Abrahamsen         >            <  13: Per Abrahamsen         >

o [  25: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]              [  25: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]
\-> [  29: Maciej Matysiak        ]                [  29: Maciej Matysiak        ]

In mutt (as I understand it) adopted articles have that `*' in their
tree. %B without the patch had given `\->' to the adopted articles in
the upper thread. I can't imagine how to implement this by format
string specs. The old^W unpatched %B behaviour can of course be
obtained by setting `gnus-sum-thread-tree-adopted-leaf' to `\->', too.

> Hmm...  I haven't really tried the tree view thingie.  And the
> variables like `gnus-sum-thread-tree-vertical' aren't documented.
> Could somebody fix this, please?  And perhaps make those variables
> customizable? 

I have never used texinfo :-(). And should the `sum' be expanded before making
them more public. The names would still fit on one line in messages
discussing them ;-). I guess they'd get their own defgroup.

	Martin