From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/6287 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: craffert@ml.com (Colin Rafferty) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Why no multiple *Article* buffers? Date: 20 May 1996 20:46:33 -0400 Sender: craffert@spspme.ml.com Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Colin Rafferty NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035146766 3223 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:46:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:46:06 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA15706 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 18:05:39 -0700 Original-Received: from mlfire.ml.com (mlfire.ml.com [192.246.100.1]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 02:47:30 +0200 Original-Received: from commpost.ml.com ([146.125.4.24]) by mlfire.ml.com (8.7.5/8.7.3/MLgw-2.05) with SMTP id UAA26296 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 20:50:49 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from spssunp.spspme.ml.com ([192.168.111.13]) by commpost.ml.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA25522 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 20:49:52 -0400 (EST) Original-Received: by spssunp.spspme.ml.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-4.1) id UAA15121; Mon, 20 May 1996 20:46:38 -0400 Original-To: (ding) GNUS Mailing List In-Reply-To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of 20 May 1996 19:44:42 +0200 Original-Lines: 33 X-Face: ""xJff%{>hr-{:QXl"Xk2O@@(+F]e{"%EYQiW@mUuvEsL>=mx96j12qW[%m;|:B^n{J8k?Mz[K1_+H;$v,nYx^1o_=4M,L+]FIU~[[`-w~~xsy-BX,?tAF_.8u&0y*@aCv;a}Y'{w@#*@iwAl?oZpvvv X-Y-Zippy: .. I feel.. JUGULAR.. Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6287 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6287 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: > Scott Blachowicz writes: >> So, what possible use is it to have a single *Article* buffer to handle >> multiple *Summary* buffers? > Having multiple article buffers can be somewhat confusing. At least I > thought so after I switched to multiple article buffers, which can be > done by setting `gnus-single-article-buffer' to nil. Agree with Scott, respectfully disagree with Lars. As one of the major testers of multiple article buffers, I can tell you that they make life wonderful. That is, if you are using multiple frames. But if you are not using multiple frames, you are not using Gnus to its full potential. I have one virtual window in vtwm in which I do all mail/news reading. The left half of the screen has a stack of emacs frames, each of which holds a single summary/article pair of buffers for one group. M-C-F9 lowers the current frame so that I can cycle through groups. With all this, each Gnu frame has a matching *Summary* and *Article*, and when I cycle frames, I see the actual articles. A single *Article* buffer would hopelessly confuse everything. What I should really do is have `gnus-select-group-hook' change the frame out from under Gnus, and have `gnus-summary-exit-hook' kill the frame. This would make life very cool (or very confusing). -- Colin Rafferty "The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly | "Whee!" reckless ride into the unknown." -- Unabomber | -- Me