Re: gnus-agent typo?

[prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc)]

kai.grossjohann@uni-duisburg.de (Kai Großjohann) wrote:
> No, the original logic took a list of articles and then _added_
> marked ones, except that it didn't add seen or recent ones.
>
> Maybe that's the best solution.

You guessed that the original logic was buggy, and I guess the same,
because it seems odd to treat seen and recent articles similarly.
(Could someone who knows what that code is really supposed to do
comment here?)  We would expect *un*seen and recent articles to be
treated similarly, since they're semantically similar - but since
they're implemented differently (recent is a normal mark; unseen is
the lack of the seen mark), the code should look different than it
does now.  So to fix the apparent bug, but otherwise produce the same
range, we should take the initial list of article and add (seen -
recent).  (This is different from ((initial + seen) - recent).)


paul