[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should overlays evaporate by default? Conclusion: No!
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Should overlays evaporate by default? Conclusion: No! |
Date: |
Sat, 28 May 2005 07:52:40 -0400 |
I did start to patch files exposed by my limited testing (see below),
but there were many, and I found I was setting 'evaporate to nil, not t.
Given that, and given that magically disappearing is in general
surprising default behaviour, then it would be better to retain the
current overlay defaults.
Ok. Thanks for testing this.
Did you find any cases where the code ought to put on t as the
evaporate property? Your patches include one, in gnus-cite. Were
there others?
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, (continued)
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2005/05/17
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/18
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2005/05/19
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/19
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Peter Whaite, 2005/05/20
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default? Conclusion: No!, Peter Whaite, 2005/05/27
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default? Conclusion: No!,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default? Conclusion: No!, Peter Whaite, 2005/05/30
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default? Conclusion: No!, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/31
- Re: RMAIL slows, Robert J. Chassell, 2005/05/06
- Re: RMAIL slows, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/06
- Re: RMAIL slows, Robert J. Chassell, 2005/05/06
Re: RMAIL slows, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/05