Re: couple of feature requests, a question

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no>]

"St. Suika Fenderson Roberts" <wrobert2@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu> writes:

> LMI> Because I think it's a good idea not to force gratuitous
> LMI> interface changes upon people.  Having multiple article buffers
> LMI> might annoy some people.
> 
> Hmm, this might be true, except that this won't show up unless one has
> multiple summary buffers, which is not possible under the old user
> interface, right? 

That's true.  It's a touchy-feely issue, really.  Having multiple
summary buffers doesn't seem to have that big an impact on the user
interface, but having multiple article buffers seems to have one.  In
my opinion.

> LMI> Or "comp.lang.c".  I don't think it's inconceivable that people
> LMI> would want to call a folder something like that -- and they
> LMI> should be able to.  Which is why those `raw's are needed.
> 
> Hmm, that is a decent point, but there should be a different way of
> keeping auto-folder-alist from messing with things without using the
> 'raw s.  (This is important to me because I have over four meg worth
> of gzipped mail folders)

There really should be a way to let the .gz action take place while
inhibiting mode changes and local variables.  There isn't one at the
moment, I'm afraid.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@ifi.uio.no * Lars Ingebrigtsen