limit to unseen mark?

limit to unseen mark?

[Bill White]

how can i use '/ m' in the summary buffer to limit to unseen articles,
whose mark is "."?

these don't work:

/ m .
/ m \.
/ m \\.
/ m "."

Cheers -

bw
-- 
Bill White . billw@wolfram.com . http://members.wri.com/billw
"No ma'am, we're musicians."

Re: limit to unseen mark?

[Paul Stevenson]

B White writes:

> how can i use '/ m' in the summary buffer to limit to unseen articles,
> whose mark is "."?

I have a feeling that one can only limit to a certain subset of marks
(primary marks?) and that "." isn't one of them.

I think I had the feeling ages ago that class war should be fought on
behalf of marks so that they were all of equal status.  Or am I
getting confused with Marx?

Re: limit to unseen mark?

[Kai Großjohann]

Paul Stevenson <p.stevenson@surrey.ac.uk> writes:

> B White writes:
>
>> how can i use '/ m' in the summary buffer to limit to unseen articles,
>> whose mark is "."?
>
> I have a feeling that one can only limit to a certain subset of marks
> (primary marks?) and that "." isn't one of them.

Right.

> I think I had the feeling ages ago that class war should be fought on
> behalf of marks so that they were all of equal status.  Or am I
> getting confused with Marx?

Right now, there are two columns in the summary buffer.  If you
change this, then you can't see whether a mail is read and answered,
or only read, or only answered.

kai
-- 
Silence is foo!

Re: limit to unseen mark?

[Paul Stevenson]

K Großjohann writes:

> Paul Stevenson <p.stevenson@surrey.ac.uk> writes:
>
>> I think I had the feeling ages ago that class war should be fought on
>> behalf of marks so that they were all of equal status.  Or am I
>> getting confused with Marx?
>
> Right now, there are two columns in the summary buffer.  If you
> change this, then you can't see whether a mail is read and answered,
> or only read, or only answered.

One could still have two columns even if there were no concept of
primary and secondary marks by having two lists of marks; one with
marks to be displayed in the first column and one for those which
should be displayed in the second. Gnus could then consult the list
when generating the display.  No doubt there are other ways to achieve
the same.  Perhaps there are also other problems, though.  I don't
know how vitally the primary/secondary mark scheme manifests itself
elsewhere.

Paul

Re: limit to unseen mark?

[Simon Josefsson]

Paul Stevenson <p.stevenson@surrey.ac.uk> writes:

> B White writes:
>
>> how can i use '/ m' in the summary buffer to limit to unseen articles,
>> whose mark is "."?
>
> I have a feeling that one can only limit to a certain subset of marks
> (primary marks?) and that "." isn't one of them.

Yes.

> I think I had the feeling ages ago that class war should be fought on
> behalf of marks so that they were all of equal status.

If all marks were the same, you couldn't tell them apart.  F is a read
SOUP article, but F as a secondary mark is a forwarded article.  OTOH
this seems to be the only overlapping character, and SOUP is not
extremely popular so perhaps the SOUP character could be changed.

Re: limit to unseen mark?

[Robert Epprecht]

Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> writes:

> Paul Stevenson <p.stevenson@surrey.ac.uk> writes:
>
>> B White writes:
>>
>>> how can i use '/ m' in the summary buffer to limit to unseen articles,
>>> whose mark is "."?
>>
>> I have a feeling that one can only limit to a certain subset of marks
>> (primary marks?) and that "." isn't one of them.
>
> Yes.

And would it be difficult to expand the possibility to limit on marks
to include other marks, like '.' ?  (This is a feature wish ;-)

Robert Epprecht

Re: limit to unseen mark?

[Bill White]

On Mon Mar 25 2002 at 14:01, Robert Epprecht <epprecht@cybercity.ch> said:

> Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> writes:
>
>> Paul Stevenson <p.stevenson@surrey.ac.uk> writes:
>>
>>> B White writes:
>>>
>>>> how can i use '/ m' in the summary buffer to limit to unseen
>>>> articles, whose mark is "."?
>>>
>>> I have a feeling that one can only limit to a certain subset of
>>> marks (primary marks?) and that "." isn't one of them.
>>
>> Yes.
>
> And would it be difficult to expand the possibility to limit on
> marks to include other marks, like '.' ?  (This is a feature wish
> ;-)

Or maybe I could promote unseen-mark in my local gnus so it's a
primary mark?  For me, it's *the* "primary" mark - the only one I'm
concerned with usually, aside from ! and ?.

Dunno how to promote it, though.

Cheers -

bw
-- 
Bill White . billw@wolfram.com . http://members.wri.com/billw
"No ma'am, we're musicians."

Re: limit to unseen mark?

[Paul Jarc]

Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> wrote:
> Paul Stevenson <p.stevenson@surrey.ac.uk> writes:
>> I have a feeling that one can only limit to a certain subset of marks
>> (primary marks?) and that "." isn't one of them.
...
>> I think I had the feeling ages ago that class war should be fought on
>> behalf of marks so that they were all of equal status.
>
> If all marks were the same, you couldn't tell them apart.

Sure you could.  They all have distinct symbol names, regardless of
what character is used to represent them for display in the *Summary*
buffer.  The mark-related commands could be changed to accept a mark
symbol name as well as the display character.


paul

Re: limit to unseen mark?

[David S. Goldberg]

I've found that I can limit to the `unseen' mark (. in second column)
by running /m with " ." as the mark to look for.  This is probably ok
for the . but not for some others (e.g. A) since there's no way (that
I can find) to wildcard the first position.
-- 
Dave Goldberg
david.goldberg6@verizon.net

Re: limit to unseen mark?

[David S. Goldberg]

>>>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:40:35 -0500, david.goldberg6@verizon.net
>>>>> (David S. Goldberg) foolishly said:

> I've found that I can limit to the `unseen' mark (. in second column)
> by running /m with " ." as the mark to look for.  This is probably ok
> for the . but not for some others (e.g. A) since there's no way (that
> I can find) to wildcard the first position.

Never mind.  I should have done more testing.  The only reason it
worked was that all unseen articles also had space as the primary
mark.  The second character in the search is apparently ignored.

-- 
Dave Goldberg
david.goldberg6@verizon.net