From: Greg Troxel <gdt@work.lexort.com>
To: ding@gnus.org
Subject: Re: Poll: `C-u g' and `C-u C-u g' meanings
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 07:00:21 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <smusjyg9yga.fsf@linuxpal.mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m3d3plifb0.fsf@quimbies.gnus.org> (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of "Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:16:51 +0100")
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 902 bytes --]
`C-u g' used to show the raw article. I changed that to `C-u C-u g',
and made `C-u g' show the half-cooked article: After
Content-Transfer-Encoding handling, but before article washing.
Should we reverse the `C-u C-u g' and `C-u g' meanings?
We should be very reluctant to change the meaning of longstanding
bindings. I want 'fully raw' most often.
Once you go beyond "100% raw" and "100% cooked", there are a larger
number of potential steps to be omitted. So it probably makes sense to
use numeric prefixes. An alternative interface would be to have some
keybinding following C-u g apply the processing steps one at a time.
I don't really recommend space (haven't thought enough) but how about it
C-u g (fully raw) space (content-transfer) space (html/text select)
space (wash) ....
and g when in incremental-cook mode got back to fully cooked and turned
space back to normal?
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 194 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-02 12:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-01 17:16 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2010-12-01 17:49 ` Adam Sjøgren
2010-12-01 18:13 ` Daniel Dehennin
2010-12-01 18:47 ` Steinar Bang
2010-12-01 19:36 ` Christoph Conrad
2010-12-01 21:40 ` Harry Putnam
2010-12-02 3:06 ` jidanni
2010-12-01 19:43 ` Frank Schmitt
2010-12-02 10:27 ` Łukasz Stelmach
2010-12-04 22:35 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2010-12-14 23:40 ` Ted Zlatanov
2010-12-15 19:32 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2010-12-15 21:06 ` Ted Zlatanov
2010-12-16 16:11 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2010-12-16 17:22 ` Ted Zlatanov
2010-12-02 11:16 ` Ludovic Courtès
2010-12-02 12:00 ` Greg Troxel [this message]
2010-12-02 20:20 ` Reiner Steib
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=smusjyg9yga.fsf@linuxpal.mit.edu \
--to=gdt@work.lexort.com \
--cc=ding@gnus.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).