[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should overlays evaporate by default? Conclusion: No!
From: |
Peter Whaite |
Subject: |
Re: Should overlays evaporate by default? Conclusion: No! |
Date: |
Mon, 30 May 2005 12:22:03 -0400 |
Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Did you find any cases where the code ought to put on t as the
> evaporate property? Your patches include one, in gnus-cite. Were
> there others?
No but I didn't look very far. I only picked up gnus-cite because its
used by mh-e.
I'll continue running with the patch, and I will let you know if I see
more.
---
Peter Whaite
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, (continued)
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2005/05/17
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/18
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2005/05/19
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/19
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Peter Whaite, 2005/05/20
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default? Conclusion: No!, Peter Whaite, 2005/05/27
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default? Conclusion: No!, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/28
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default? Conclusion: No!,
Peter Whaite <=
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default? Conclusion: No!, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/31
- Re: RMAIL slows, Robert J. Chassell, 2005/05/06
- Re: RMAIL slows, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/06
- Re: RMAIL slows, Robert J. Chassell, 2005/05/06
Re: RMAIL slows, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/05