From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Sending attachments Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:12:57 +0900 Message-ID: References: <87k52rzyn1.fsf@benthic.rattlesnake.com> <873a9fw6dt.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87y6r7yp1y.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <877hyp3by2.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87r5wvdw57.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <833a991sf6.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1246929211 14053 80.91.229.12 (7 Jul 2009 01:13:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 01:13:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Chong Yidong , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 07 03:13:23 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MNzFG-0007nP-Ek for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 03:13:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41963 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MNzFF-00044u-LJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:13:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MNzFA-00044p-HL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:13:12 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MNzF5-00041H-2s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:13:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35327 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MNzF4-00041C-VH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:13:06 -0400 Original-Received: from tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp ([202.32.8.206]:38721) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MNzF0-0003oW-6e; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:13:02 -0400 Original-Received: from relay21.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.50]) by tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n671CwWk010703; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:12:58 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from relay21.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.20] [10.29.19.20]) by relay21.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:12:58 +0900 Original-Received: from dhlpc061 ([10.114.112.173] [10.114.112.173]) by relay21.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:12:58 +0900 Original-Received: by dhlpc061 (Postfix, from userid 31295) id D459A52E206; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:12:57 +0900 (JST) System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Blat: Foop In-Reply-To: <833a991sf6.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:13:17 +0300") Original-Lines: 42 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 8 (1) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:112117 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> As has been pointed out, message-mode has more features than mail-mode. > > Yes. And Gnus has much more features than Rmail. So what? We all do > agree that much more features means more complexity in setting things > up. Why impose that on people who are happy with simple modes? How, exactly, is message-mode an "imposition" on "people who are happy with simple modes"? * Its user-interface? [As far as I can tell, message-mode's UI _isn't_ complex, and indeed is pretty much exactly the same as mail-mode's (its additional functionality being largely invisible unless you use it). I've used both many times over the years, and never noticed anything obviously different (there are random trivial differences like header-filling whitespace, etc, but those are not significant -- if they actually bother people, they can easily be changed).] * Its resource consumption? [It doesn't seem any slower (which makes sense, as the great bulk of the extra functionality is only used with explicitly invoked). It's more code, but doesn't seem horribly large by emacs standards, and additional memory used by its code seems small compared to the rest of emacs, and shouldn't be an issue on any modern system.] * Is it more buggy? [Never noticed any obvious difference in this respect.] * Is it missing useful user-customization hooks or settings that mail-mode has? * Does it interface badly with some other Emacs code (e.g., rmail)? Please, please, somebody who asserts that mail-mode is necessary, give some concrete examples as to _why_. The amount of hand-waving in this thread is maddening... -Miles -- Future, n. That period of time in which our affairs prosper, our friends are true and our happiness is assured.