Re: TODO idea:

[Jason R Mastaler <jason@mastaler.com>]

Wesley Hardaker <whardake@sphysdec1.unil.ch> writes:

> Well, that was the original idea technically...  nnml can be
> considered nnmh really...  its just better, as nnmh doesn't keep
> records of things.  Anyway, It should be a new interface as not
> everyone wants to create the new file, there for it should be a
> super-class (what is the oo stuff called in nnoo?) of nnml...  But I
> definately do want it in nnml, not nnmh, as its a better interface for
> gnus...

Not keeping records of some things (like an active file) can sometimes
be useful.  I specifically use nnmh so I can read all my mail outside
Gnus if I want.  Back to the issue of a new backend.  Being ignorant
of the design issues involved, I'll ask why not just give the user the
choice of adding the unseen sequences file functionality to the
current backend(s) if she wants to use it? (extra option or something)
-- it seems like it would more flexible that way. 

And yes I agree, for *Gnus*, nnml is a better interface.

   Jason R. Mastaler                      jason@mastaler.com