Re: selectively disabling HTML rendering?

[Emanuel Berg]

Mike Small <smallm@panix.com> writes:

> I'm thinking I'm in this category of being
> unorthodox in that I'm depending on the
> implementation of internal undocumented
> Gnus functions.

Actually I don't know who is unorthodox here :)

My take is:

1) all functions should be documented, and

2) there is nothing wrong relying on (any) existent
   code that is good and does what you want

If you are worried they will change, which I don't
think they will - or, if they will, the interface (the
input mapping to output) should remain the same, in
which case you *want* the changes anyway as they are
probably efficiency motivated or bugfixes - but if you
are nonetheless worried they will change, just dump
the code in a file - if upgrade breaks your stuff,
compare and see what changed. But I only advice you
this because I think it won't happen. So it is only to
relax you :)

For one (for many I should say) I use *tons* of all
kind of functions from any and all modules, and with
50+ files of Elisp I had to change one or two things
which were total details when I upgraded most
recently. So, don't worry about it!

> Thanks for the tips on documentation and coding
> style. I've applied some of that. What I've not
> followed (e.g. documenting the argument and not hard
> coding the from value) I ignored only because
> I don't see myself publishing this function to
> others. Er, other than on this news group, that is.

Remember, regardless of who the audience is, if you
behave like a pro, that's what you become - more, do
it every day it doesn't even take that long even.
Never show any weaknesses to your opponent, the
grandmaster says. Nor to yourself, his top
student says.

> My usual case is to want the html rendering.
> It's only Anu's Word a Day where I want the text
> alternative. I was manually switching it over to
> text for a while, but wanted to have it happen
> automatically. I read his emails every weekday so
> a manual step would be annoying.

OK, how about: when you see that post in the summary
buffer, you open it with another key? That way you
don't even hit an extra key, just *another* key. E.g.,
instead of RET, assign M-RET to do this. That has the
advantage of being flexible as well - perhaps some new
situation arrives, where you want the distinction
again? In principle and practice I'm a big fan of
DWIM-hacking but this seems to me too unbalanced -
i.e., one sender vs. everything else - to be sensible.
But I'm not telling you what to do, of course.

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573