Re: 5.2.20 nits/fixes (with patches for most)

[Christopher Davis <ckd@loiosh.kei.com>]

LMI> == Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no>

 ckd> - message-insert-signature adds a gratuitous blank line at the end
 ckd>   of the text if the text already ends in a newline.

 LMI> An extra newline before the signature separator?  Hm, yes...  It
 LMI> removes all whitespace at the end of the message before inserting
 LMI> the signature, and it inserts a blank line before the separator.

Actually, it backs up over all the whitespace, moves forward a line (so if
there is a newline at the end of the text, point will be at the beginning
of the next line), and then deletes from there to point-max (preserving
said newline, if any).

So there are three possibilities:

- no newline at end of buffer.  forward-line will silently fail, and
  message-insert-signature will insert \n-- \n and the signature.

- one newline at end of buffer (my usual situation).  forward-line will
  move past that newline, message-insert-signature will delete from there
  (point-max) to point-max (a no-op), then message-insert-signature will
  add another newline, leaving a blank line between the last line of text
  and the .signature file.

- more than one newline (or other whitespace) at end of buffer.  (Trailing
  whitespace on the last line of text not included.)  forward-line will
  move past the first newline, the rest will be deleted, and then the
  scenario goes as for one newline (above).

In order to fix the second and third scenarios without breaking the first,
it suffices to check to make sure that you're not at bol before inserting
a newline before the signature separator (as my patch does).

 LMI> This is slightly fascist.  Should it do this or not?

Maybe it should be part of the syntax checks, but I say yes!  It should
zap the whitespace (by default, anyway).  Since so many people don't set
next-line-add-newlines to nil, lots of posts could otherwise go out with
20 blank lines at the end.
-- 
Christopher Davis <ckd@kei.com> <URL: http://www.kei.com/homepages/ckd/ >
"I conclude that the CDA is unconstitutional and that the First Amendment
 denies Congress the power to regulate protected speech on the Internet."
                               -- Judge Stewart Dalzell in _ACLU v. Reno_