Re: Exiting groups moves the cursor to next line

[Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org>]

>>>>> In <873b1z5u6x.fsf@lrde.org> Michaël Cadilhac wrote:
> Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org> writes:

>> Only setting `gnus-group-goto-unread' to nil has been sufficient
>> for me but that's ok.;-)

> I _need_ to do things the hard way :-) Well, it's not completely the
> same thing, isn't it?

Yes, they are not the same.  While `gnus-group-goto-unread' decides
where the point is moved to, `gnus-summary-next-group-on-exit'
decides whether to move the point or not and is preferred than
the former if it is nil.  `g-g-g-u' is used also for cases other
than simply exiting the summary buffer; the most typical one is
the `n' command in the group buffer, although it is named `unread'
and there is even the `N' command[1].  I'd been using `g-g-g-u'
with the nil value, but I can replace it with setting `g-s-n-g-o-e'
to nil if it is effective also when I use the `Q' command in the
summary buffer.

Why I needed to set `g-g-g-u' to nil is that I have all my mail
groups always visible (even if there is no unread article) in
the group buffer.  In the case where there are many mail groups
having no unread articles, I don't want Gnus to move the point
far far away.

>> Why don't you use `gnus-summary-next-group-on-exit' in
>> `gnus-summary-exit-no-update' too?

> Simple: because I'm a newcomer in Gnus patching, and I had to make an
> error.  Was quite obvious, nop? :-)

I think it is not a matter how long you've been improving Gnus. :-)

> There's also two other occurrences of (gnus-group-next-unread-group 1),
> but it's not really a « summary exit » so I don't know if I should put
> the test there:

> In gnus-summary-read-group-1:

>      ;; We couldn't select this group.
>      ((null did-select)
>         [...]
> 	(gnus-group-next-unread-group 1)
>         [...])

>      ;; The user did a `C-g' while prompting for number of articles,
>      ;; so we exit this group.
>      ((eq did-select 'quit)
>         [...]
> 	(gnus-group-next-unread-group 1)
>         [...])

IMHO, `gnus-summary-next-group-on-exit' should be effective also
for them, in the viewpoint that some of those who set it to nil
have a lot of visible groups having no unread article. ;-)

[1] I think it is better to make `gnus-group-next-unread-group'
behave as its name, regardless of the value of
`gnus-group-goto-unread'.  So does `gnus-group-prev-unread-group'.
Because there seems to be no means to move the point to an unread
group automatically for users who set `gnus-group-goto-unread' to
nil, `gnus-group-catchup-current' works on even groups in which
there is no unread article when two or more groups are marked if
`gnus-group-goto-unread' is nil...

Regards,

P.S.  Please ignore it but I hit on a plan; setting
`gnus-group-goto-unread' to `never' might become a substitute of
setting `gnus-summary-next-group-on-exit' to nil.