From: larsi@ifi.uio.no (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen)
Subject: Re: gnus-topic open-topic indicator
Date: 06 Nov 1995 14:32:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <w8sg2g1zx4y.fsf@narfi.ifi.uio.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Sudish Joseph's message of 02 Nov 1995 02:27:59 -0500
Sudish Joseph <joseph@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:
> Dave Disser writes:
> > More on this... Maybe a gnus-topic-line-format is the righter thing
> > to do?
>
> Yes, please! I can see the eventual addition of unread/marked article
> totals (for subsumed groups) to the closed topic line in the group
> buffer; implementing it this way allows for future functionality.
Yup; I agree. I've added it to the ever-expanding todo list. Hm. I
think I should try to implement some more stuff from that list
soonish, but I'm kinda busy at the moment...
> Another cool topics feature would be to allow interactive movement of
> groups between topics. I.e., we might overload Cut (C-k, C-w) and
> Paste (C-y) so that the group gets inserted into the topic it was
> yanked under. This isn't very hard, we just have to add an entry to
> the group parameter list at yank time.
Yes, that sounds like a good idea as well.
gnus-topic is an obviously Good Idea, but I'm wondering whether we
should try do generalize this stuff more. If somebody comes up with a
different scheme for partitioning the group buffer, it might be better
if we had something more general in store...
Or maybe not. Perhaps just a simple "flat" group buffer and a
"folded" one is all that we need.
> Not a big thing, but it would complicate (and/or seriously slow down)
> the update of read/ticked article counts (if they get added). Hmm,
> maybe add a parameter to indicate that the group should belong to just
> the one topic? Or just use the existence of a topic parameter to
> determine this (i.e., ignore gnus-group-topics for such groups)?
>
> Actually, the interaction between gnus-group-topics and group
> parameter entries should probably be settled before doing the above.
Yes... Isn't it the case that if a group has a topic group parameter
and `gnus-topic-unique', then this won't really be a problem? The
group parameter is checked before checking `gnus-group-topics'?
--
Home is where the cat is.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1995-11-06 13:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <r1xag6iakvq.fsf@hpsdlgf8.sdd.hp.com>
[not found] ` <s44loq2m258.fsf@faui21i.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
[not found] ` <r1x91m1so3s.fsf@hpsdlgf8.sdd.hp.com>
1995-11-02 3:40 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
1995-11-02 6:35 ` Dave Disser
1995-11-02 6:39 ` Dave Disser
1995-11-02 7:27 ` Sudish Joseph
1995-11-06 13:32 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen [this message]
1995-11-06 14:02 ` Luis Fernandes
1995-11-10 1:09 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
1995-11-10 3:02 ` Andy Eskilsson
1995-11-11 18:42 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
1995-11-06 16:04 ` Andy Eskilsson
1995-11-10 1:09 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
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=w8sg2g1zx4y.fsf@narfi.ifi.uio.no \
--to=larsi@ifi.uio.no \
/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).