From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#46463: 27.1; rmailout glitch Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 19:10:24 +0200 Message-ID: <83im6t9rzz.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83y2fscmii.fsf@gnu.org> <83pn119wel.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="23777"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 46463@debbugs.gnu.org To: Francesco =?UTF-8?Q?Potort=C3=AC?= Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 15 18:15:25 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lBhT1-000609-9O for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 18:15:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41072 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lBhT0-0005nY-Aw for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 12:15:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60400) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lBhOo-0002my-CK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 12:11:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:55319) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lBhOo-0007YY-58 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 12:11:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lBhOo-0005x9-0y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 12:11:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:11:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 46463 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 46463-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B46463.161340902822843 (code B ref 46463); Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:11:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 46463) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Feb 2021 17:10:28 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38632 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lBhOF-0005wM-9M for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 12:10:28 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:42440) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lBhOE-0005wB-G6 for 46463@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 12:10:26 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:32942) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lBhO9-0007R1-4L; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 12:10:21 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:3497 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lBhO7-0007Ju-Nu; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 12:10:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Francesco =?UTF-8?Q?Potort=C3=AC?= on Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:19:19 +0100) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:200076 Archived-At: > From: Francesco Potort́ > Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:19:19 +0100 > Cc: 46463@debbugs.gnu.org > > > Optional prefix argument COUNT (default 1) says to output that > > many consecutive messages, starting with the current one (ignoring > > deleted messages, unless `rmail-output-reset-deleted-flag' is > > non-nil). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > ^^^^^^^ > > Hm. This is not the semantics I had intended when I first suggested > adding that flag. In my proposed implementation (which was rejected > probably because it did not cover all cases, I do not recall for sure) > the only effect of rmail-output-reset-deleted-flag was on the output > file, it did not change anything on the current file or the behaviour of > the commands. > > Since current message #2 is being deleted, and the subsequent message $3 > is already deleted, I expect the same that happens when pressing 'd' > on message #2: But if you invoke 'o' with an argument N under rmail-output-reset-deleted-flag non-nil, it outputs N messages, regardless of whether they were deleted. Since that option says to reset the "deleted" flag before outputting, it makes sense to disregard the "deleted" flag when moving as well. This is the reasoning behind the behavior you see. > 1) get a message saying that there is no further undeleted message > 2) stay on the same message > > Instead, the current message #2 is deleted and I am shown message #3. > This should happen only if message #3 was not deleted. The command assumes that you may wish to output more deleted messages, so it moves to the next message, whether deleted or not. > What the flag should do is to reset the flag when writing the message to > the output file (it should not affect the flag on the original mail > file). It does more than that, as the documentation says. > >Why it is a problem for you that Rmail goes to the very next message > >in this situation? > > Because I want 'o' to work the same (as far as the current mail file is > regarded) independent of the setting of rmail-output-reset-deleted-flag. > The only difference in behaviour should be whether the deleted flag is > set in the message copy that goes in the output file. Then I guess this is another optional behavior, and it needs to be coded. The current code doesn't support that, and it is documented. Would you like to submit a patch to that effect, perhaps including addition of a 3rd value to rmail-output-reset-deleted-flag? Thanks.