From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: RMAIL, MIME-related bug Date: 16 Oct 2003 05:40:22 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <7137-Thu16Oct2003085921+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <14020.1066290086@www64.gmx.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1066297285 30397 80.91.224.253 (16 Oct 2003 09:41:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:41:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 16 11:41:21 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AA4dF-0004c2-00 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:41:21 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AA4dF-0005IM-00 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:41:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AA4d3-0000G5-3s for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 05:41:09 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AA4cy-0000Fz-CK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 05:41:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AA4cS-00006C-Lz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 05:41:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [207.245.84.69] (helo=colo.agora-net.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.24) id 1AA4cS-00005u-A1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 05:40:32 -0400 Original-Received: from ttn by colo.agora-net.com with local (Exim 3.34 #1) id 1AA4cI-0006jh-00; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 05:40:22 -0400 Original-To: "Alexander Pohoyda" In-Reply-To: "Alexander Pohoyda"'s message of "Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:41:26 +0200 (MEST)" Original-Lines: 16 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:17141 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:17141 "Alexander Pohoyda" writes: That's what I'm trying to hear in this discussion. Can't we just hide header fields instead of creating another "simplified" header in between of the message and thus braking it? you have the right idea. hiding is the desired functionality, and currently, deleting is the implementation. it's probably ok to keep the functionality and choose a more desirable implementation (overlays, for example). then when someone complains about the change breaking their code you can say "that was an implementation detail". then, they will of course ask you for your high-level design and API, in order to avoid being burned in the future. then, you will know you have thought about things in the right way from the beginning. thi