From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/75514 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Fancy Mail Splitting documentation needs improved? Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2011 07:56:05 +0100 Organization: Programmerer Ingebrigtsen Message-ID: References: <871v5cu72g.fsf@anar.kanru.info> <87sjxrre44.fsf@anar.kanru.info> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1293951942 13683 80.91.229.12 (2 Jan 2011 07:05:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 07:05:42 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M23865@lists.math.uh.edu Sun Jan 02 08:05:38 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PZI0Y-0006tM-79 for ding-account@gmane.org; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:05:38 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by util0.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PZI0X-0003KS-2j; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 01:05:37 -0600 Original-Received: from mx2.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.33]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PZI0V-0003KH-Rs for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 01:05:35 -0600 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PZI0R-00079O-NE for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 01:05:35 -0600 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PZI0R-0007si-14 for ding@gnus.org; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:05:31 +0100 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PZI0Q-0006r4-Mz for ding@gnus.org; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:05:30 +0100 Original-Received: from cm-84.215.51.58.getinternet.no ([84.215.51.58]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:05:30 +0100 Original-Received: from larsi by cm-84.215.51.58.getinternet.no with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:05:30 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-Lines: 31 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cm-84.215.51.58.getinternet.no Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAElBMVEVbZphWYZJNWIgPERU2 PFJzfKfUHqyvAAACQklEQVQ4jV1Uy27jMAwcZqM7qTZ3U0nuTZXeu3H2rgbV//9Kh7KdBUrAgM3h S5yRUet9tUIz9MW+8QRuqT+yIf0GCmNbw2/gBhMC9AJPoF7v9wRY77uiiuhk8hpAvZ5ZQ1LXXNT8 FGOcBvBJdzbtnhnsNnqOUvTHrKmYIrvtN+AfROl3VmKml0iZMRIgFrVgGqm+X4B3R5jwDMhmpWA3 gKuJ0vdFuAm7FxU91or60RyKRLTzzbMjYz+AbgRoLbWWck7iKgGce8NiDXp4cGCGzRXXvgGpxZKm kf6n4qP3tGaMzUqLz/0ARvRSjOmjQq54QzOuGvEcek6dw1mxik/lgIlfHWnHsj3RbUogO0+xtBBy 0kuZxHTGlKcYQ9w0ccmH7uauAchYVC6FOFerQyx2xBJO/0R/WcxyOaJM0czol83PxTuBwm8nSzum 7TZkegEJM9Lpa7ivwBHO422B/qyFI/6STrNnDYtO7ocZF8jDbevr1FVW1TTjHfYIN/MCoCwYhkQ+ qPB8K8qd0s93y+b6IIPswXXFsoWH/+Is1BH5qFxvDgmScaTY5spgvXAo5y3w4K+FvMQSOacQuRGR PJgNRVBIQyV1whBncNjHSm3RVb3AorIMTOJC4GUAtQy9iaZBDXkNZzzvkR5j2iru1xWo9GUSkqgX ngk2b8AbdMdT986tkN1cN6Byz4U66MsumTAuTnRxK35egVNc/RWoNzrOoSn65+v9P3Al8wS+w3V/ XuewuPQsdTtt/6IN4H/DD73cn/YDr++WMnblPuYAAAAASUVORK5CYII= Mail-Copies-To: never X-Now-Playing: His Name Is Alive's _The Eclipse (8): Silver Piano (UFO)_: "(untitled)" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:qN0MT3ht5Fv2ykN16MwDB2jflNY= X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:75514 Archived-At: Kan-Ru Chen writes: >>> Great idea and rewrite! I was confused at first when reading the >>> fancy split method, as I thought the | and & operations was logical >>> operations, but instead they are group operations. Each SPLIT will be >>> processed (&) or until one matched (|). >> >> Well... er... what's the difference? `|' and `&' are logical >> operations, and they short-circuit as expected. > > OK, the difference is that with `|' and `&' you have to specify the > target SPLIT for every rule. What in my mind is something like > programmable rules. Ideally it would look like: > (if (or (field-match "list-id" "...") > (field-match "list-id" "...")) > (split "mail.list")) > Of course this could be done via the `:' operator, but will loose the > benefits from field cache. What to do? I'm pondering... I'm probably misunderstanding something here, but `|' and `&' in the splitting rules (should) work just the same as `or' and `and' in Lisp: (or 'foo 'bar 'zot) => foo (and nil nil 'foo) => nil -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen