From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/3860 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: larsi@ifi.uio.no (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: gnus-topic open-topic indicator Date: 06 Nov 1995 14:32:45 +0100 Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway Sender: larsi@ifi.uio.no Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035144683 27609 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:11:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:11:23 +0000 (UTC) X-From-Line: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Mon Nov 6 06:49:00 1995 Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by miranova.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id GAA04745 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 06:48:58 -0800 Original-Received: from narfi.ifi.uio.no (narfi.ifi.uio.no [129.240.94.17]) by ifi.uio.no with SMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 14:32:47 +0100 Original-Received: from ) by narfi.ifi.uio.no ; Mon, 6 Nov 95 14:32:46 +0100 Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no In-Reply-To: Sudish Joseph's message of 02 Nov 1995 02:27:59 -0500 Original-Lines: 45 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:3860 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:3860 Sudish Joseph 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.