Replies, (very) wide replies, yanking, and the prefix argument
Eric Abrahamsen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.emacs.gnus.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Someone opened a bug against Gnus today[0], about buggy behavior when using "S v" (gnus-summary-very-wide-reply) with a prefix argument. That function looks like this: (defun gnus-summary-very-wide-reply (&optional yank) (interactive (list (and current-prefix-arg (gnus-summary-work-articles 1))) gnus-summary-mode) (gnus-summary-reply yank t (gnus-summary-work-articles yank))) Say point is on article number 10682 in the summary buffer, and you run "C-u S v". The call to the first `gnus-summary-work-articles' in the interactive form will return (10682), which is assigned to the variable yank. The second call to `gnus-summary-work-articles' now looks like `(gnus-summary-work-articles (10682))', which ends up trying to include the next 10,682 articles in the Summary buffer into the very wide reply. The whole thing is confusing. A few things seem wrong: 1. The Gnus manual says "S v" runs gnus-summary-wide-reply, but it actually runs gnus-summary-very-wide-reply 2. The docstring of gnus-summary-very-wide-reply says that it obeys the process/prefix convention (ie a prefix of '(4) should start a reply to the next four articles), and *also* says that the prefix argument means yank the contents of the articles being replied to. The manual only mentions the process/prefix convention. 3. Then there's the actual bug that the prefix argument is used incorrectly to generate WIDE-REPLY. I'm surprised that no one hit this bug before, and I'm not sure what to do with it. We have "S V" (gnus-summary-very-wide-reply-with-original) that uses the prefix argument correctly *and* yanks message content correctly, so I'm not sure there's a need for "S v" to handle the prefix argument both ways. I suppose I could make it handle the prefix argument both ways, though. Let me know if anyone has any thoughts on this. [0]: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=68510