[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why does Gnus article-moving act like a fetch of new news?
From: |
Eric Abrahamsen |
Subject: |
Re: Why does Gnus article-moving act like a fetch of new news? |
Date: |
Fri, 09 Apr 2021 22:29:45 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> writes:
> On 09 Apr 2021, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>> I think an argument could be made that if the DONT-SCAN optional
>> argument is non-nil, we should also skip running the two
>> get-new-news hooks. But let's see what Lars says.
>
> You mean the second argument to `gnus-group-get-new-news-this-group'?
>
> The doc string is somewhat confusing on that argument:
Yup, and looking at the code I'm inclined to think that the docs are
just a typo -- don't scan really means don't scan.
> | gnus-group-get-new-news-this-group is an interactive compiled |
> Lisp function in ‘gnus-group.el’. | |
> (gnus-group-get-new-news-this-group &optional N DONT-SCAN) | |
> Check for newly arrived news in the current group (and the N-1
> next groups). | The difference between N and the number of
> newsgroup checked is returned. | If N is negative, this group
> and the N-1 previous groups will be checked. | If DONT-SCAN is
> non-nil, scan non-activated groups as well. In other words, the
> meaning of "DONT-SCAN" seems to be: scan! One can see how a person
> might be confused by this :-).
>
> According to the "Terminology" section in the Gnus manual,
> "activating" a group means this:
>
> | The act of asking the server for info on a group and computing
> the | number of unread articles is called “activating the group”.
> | Un-activated groups are listed with ‘*’ in the group buffer.
> Thus I don't understand why moving an article to a group should
> unconditionally "activate" that group in the first place. I can
> see how moving an *unread* article to a group might activate that
> group? But the code in `gnus-summary-move-article' doesn't have
> such a conditional.
>
> And even if we leave aside the question of why we unconditionally
> activate the destination group, it's still not clear why activating a
> group should imply getting new news for that group. Or, to put it
> another way: why is the way to activate a group to get new news for
> it? These just seem like two very different things.
Yeah, I'm not sure either!