[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Gnus: Thread notes?
From: |
Michael Heerdegen |
Subject: |
Re: Gnus: Thread notes? |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Dec 2017 20:54:49 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:
> The only remaining issue is, I think it would be confusing to allow
> `gnus-alter-articles-to-read-function' to be either a single function
> value, or a list of functions. That makes it harder for consumers to
> manipulate, as they have to check its current value first. What do
> you think about requiring a list?
I wouldn't find that good (it would be an unnecessary restriction for
users ability to configure stuff), and I think then also the variable
name would really not fit anymore the semantics. I think it would then
be cleaner to introduce a new variable
`gnus-alter-articles-to-read-functions' (note the added "s"). Make it
so that
- gnus-alter-articles-to-read-function (without "s") defaults to a new
named function that would process the elements of the new variable
which should be bound to a list (of functions), default nil. That
would be backward compatible.
- People like me could use `add-function' on
`gnus-alter-articles-to-read-function'.
- People preferring a list could add their functions to the new
variable binding.
I would still prefer a solution with only one variable, but given what
we currently have, and what you want, two variables may be better. But
it's not really nice.
If I were you, I would tell people to use `add-function', it's not that
hard, and I heard most of Gnus users even use Emacs ;-)
BTW, I would expect that when the default value of
`gnus-alter-articles-to-read-function' is changed to a no-op function,
most people would just setq that variable to a function defined in their
config, there is no need to use `add-function' to configure things. So
for users who don't like to use `add-function', nothing would change.
But OTOH, packages would be able to use `add-function' to change the
behavior (though, with a certain risk that the user inadvertently erases
that when setting the variable after a package has used `add-function'
on the binding).
Anyway, I expect that we are talking about very few users here. But I
would hate a solution where I have to redefine a Gnus function just
because the provided means of configuration don't suffice.
Michael.
- Re: Gnus: Thread notes?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/12/12
- Re: Gnus: Thread notes?, Eric Abrahamsen, 2017/12/12
- Re: Gnus: Thread notes?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/12/13
- Re: Gnus: Thread notes?, Eric Abrahamsen, 2017/12/13
- Re: Gnus: Thread notes?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/12/14
- Re: Gnus: Thread notes?, Eric Abrahamsen, 2017/12/14
- Re: Gnus: Thread notes?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/12/15
- Re: Gnus: Thread notes?, Eric Abrahamsen, 2017/12/15
- Re: Gnus: Thread notes?,
Michael Heerdegen <=
- Re: Gnus: Thread notes?, Eric Abrahamsen, 2017/12/16
- Re: Gnus: Thread notes?, Eric Abrahamsen, 2017/12/28
- Re: Gnus: Thread notes?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/12/14
- Re: Gnus: Thread notes?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/12/14
- Re: Gnus: Thread notes?, Eric Abrahamsen, 2017/12/14
- Re: Gnus: Thread notes?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/12/14
- Re: Gnus: Thread notes?, Eric Abrahamsen, 2017/12/14
Re: Gnus: Thread notes?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/12/16