From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/38587
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai =?iso-8859-1?q?Gro=DFjohann?=)
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: backend stuff for the manual
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 15:38:51 +0200
Message-ID: <vafvgiz9itw.fsf@INBOX.auto.gnus.tok.lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
References: <m3wv3nk4fn.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu>
	<vaf7kvgq64w.fsf@INBOX.auto.gnus.tok.lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
	<m3wv3fnan3.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035174428 23331 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 04:27:08 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:27:08 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <grossjoh@ls6.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
Return-Path: <grossjoh@ls6.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
Original-Received: (qmail 18522 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2001 13:39:19 -0000
Original-Received: from waldorf.cs.uni-dortmund.de (129.217.4.42)
  by gnus.org with SMTP; 4 Sep 2001 13:39:19 -0000
Original-Received: from lothlorien.cs.uni-dortmund.de (lothlorien.cs.uni-dortmund.de [129.217.19.67]) by waldorf.cs.uni-dortmund.de  with ESMTP id PAA10341 for <ding@gnus.org>; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 15:38:52 +0200 (MES)
Original-Received: from lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de (lucy [129.217.19.80])
	by lothlorien.cs.uni-dortmund.de id PAA06904; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 15:38:51 +0200 (MET DST)
Original-Received: by lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de (Postfix, from userid 6104)
	id 9954620B0; Tue,  4 Sep 2001 15:38:51 +0200 (CEST)
Original-To: ding@gnus.org
In-Reply-To: <m3wv3fnan3.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu> (prj@po.cwru.edu's message
 of "Mon, 03 Sep 2001 18:59:22 -0400")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.0.106
Original-Lines: 27
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:38587
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:38587

prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:

> Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Gro=DFjohann) wrote:
> > What do you think of the following paragraph?
>
> I like it.
>
>>| The result data from this function should be all groups that were
>
> Maybe "should include all groups"?  Just to be a bit less
> contradictory with the note that follows.

Hm.  Maybe.

>>| in the active buffer format.  (It is okay for this function to return
>>| `too many' groups; some backends might find it cheaper to return the
>>| full list of groups, rather than just the new groups.  But don't do this
>>| for backends with too many groups.)
>
> Maybe also add a note about how to predict whether there are "too
> many" groups:

I tried to add that.

kai
--=20
Symbol's function definition is void: signature