From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/17065 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: User interface confusion; p0.30 invokes VM? Date: 14 Sep 1998 07:44:18 +0200 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035155832 31407 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 23:17:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:17:12 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from gizmo.hpc.uh.edu (gizmo.hpc.uh.edu [129.7.102.31]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA07607 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 01:53:31 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (sina.hpc.uh.edu [129.7.3.5]) by gizmo.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAF24055; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 00:24:32 -0500 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Mon, 14 Sep 1998 00:51:56 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [209.195.19.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA25283 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 00:51:39 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sparky.gnus.org (ppp026.uio.no [129.240.240.27]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA07542 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 01:51:31 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: (from larsi@localhost) by sparky.gnus.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA20617; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 07:54:36 +0200 Mail-Copies-To: never X-Now-Reading: Walt Whitman's _Leaves of Grass_ Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Karl Kleinpaste's message of "13 Sep 1998 15:13:25 -0400" User-Agent: Gnus/5.070031 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.31) XEmacs/21.0 (Finnish Landrace) X-Face: &w!^oO~dS|}-P0~ge{$c!h\ writes: > What is the semantic of more than 1 entry for a given type? That is, > there are already 4 elements for message/rfc822. Is it simply a > matter of looping through them in sequence, until the per-element > usability test returns non-nil? Yes. > If so, isn't vm-mode always > autoloaded, and thus isn't vm-mode always the choice made? To phrase > the question without the negative voice, how would one stipulate a > different personal choice? Well, I think the default sequence should be different, but this structure isn't for specifying personal choice. The user is supposed to either put things in the .mailcap file or say things like (add-mime-display-method "image/gif" "xv -perfect %s") in .emacs. (The name of the function may change, though.) The biiig mailcap alist is for specifying defaults that may or may not be useful for the user. > Since I'm using Gnus to read mail, I would like to continue to use > Gnus to read enclosd articles which are still essentially mail. The > idea seems very odd, to invoke an entirely different mail-reading > package to do what I already want using Gnus. Something like: > > ("rfc-*822" > (viewer . gnus-article-prepare) > (type . "message/rfc-822")) > > (I haven't actually looked to see if there is any other preparatory > work to be done, before blindly invoking gnus-article-prepare.) > > I don't see why one would invoke any other possibility, from within > Gnus -- if one wants the VM interface, one should be using VM in the > 1st place. No? Yes, but mailcap.el has nothing to do with Gnus. So there should be a `test' clause like (and (featurep 'gnus) (gnus-alive-p)) for that element, and something similar for VM. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen