From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/5882 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: couple of feature requests, a question Date: 10 Apr 1996 00:05:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035146421 1687 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:40:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:40:21 +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 RAA05329 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:47:16 -0700 Original-Received: from aegir.ifi.uio.no (4867@aegir.ifi.uio.no [129.240.94.24]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 02:05:02 +0200 Original-Received: (from larsi@localhost) by aegir.ifi.uio.no ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 02:05:01 +0200 Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no In-Reply-To: "St. Suika Fenderson Roberts"'s message of (unknown date) Original-Lines: 31 X-Mailer: September Gnus v0.69/Emacs 19.30 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:5882 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:5882 "St. Suika Fenderson Roberts" 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