Discussion:
[VM] vm-reply/followup-include presentation
blueman
2012-06-18 02:43:46 UTC
Permalink
I'm trying to figure out what has happened to
vm-reply-include-presentation and vm-followup-include presentation.

The describe-function documentation is a bit unclear, since it seems to
imply that a function is obsoleted and replaced by a variable, which is
a bit non-obvious to understand.

If I am understanding the message, it seems that the obsoleted functions
are replaced by a single *function* vm-reply-include-text and the
behavior supersedes vm-reply-include-presentation *and*
vm-followup-include-presentation depending on the value of the
*variable* vm-reply-include-presentation.

All of this is ok so far, but it seems at least from the function
documentation that we are *losing* the ability to follow-up to multiple
marked messages which was a really *unique* and *nice* feature of
vm. Specifically, one could mark several messages in a thread (for
example) and reply to all of them at once.

If I am understanding this correctly, I am not sure why one would want
to regress this function?

I think that as a general philosophy, functions should only be obsoleted
if they are replaced by *superior* functionality and not if
functionality is lost. In other words, if it ain't broke, please don't
fix it or at least please don't obsolete it...

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding...

Thanks,
Jeff
Uday Reddy
2012-06-18 07:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by blueman
I'm trying to figure out what has happened to
vm-reply-include-presentation and vm-followup-include presentation.
The describe-function documentation is a bit unclear, since it seems to
imply that a function is obsoleted and replaced by a variable, which is
a bit non-obvious to understand.
When I do describe-function, I get this:

vm-reply-include-presentation is an interactive compiled Lisp function
in `vm-rfaddons.el'.

(vm-reply-include-presentation COUNT &optional TO-ALL)

This function is obsolete since 8.2.0;
use `vm-include-text-from-presentation' instead.

Include presentation instead of text.
This does only work with my modified VM, i.e. a hacked `vm-yank-message'.

The first thing to note is that this function belongs to vm-rfaddons, not
VM. It is not being maintained ever since Rob F has gone AWOL. Ideally,
Rob F should have called the variable `vmrf-reply-include-presentation' or
something like that, but he didn't care to follow such niceties. Since
Rob's doc string says that it only works with his "hacked" vm-yank-message,
you should be really worried. (I have no idea what it means.)

VM now has the ability to include the text from the Presentation buffer,
which you get by using `vm-include-text-from-presentation'. Please try it
and let me know if it doesn't fit the bill.

But even this setting shouldn't be normally necessary. Just standard VM
inclusion should work fine.
Post by blueman
If I am understanding the message, it seems that the obsoleted functions
are replaced by a single *function* vm-reply-include-text and the
behavior supersedes vm-reply-include-presentation *and*
vm-followup-include-presentation depending on the value of the
*variable* vm-reply-include-presentation.
The Emacs doc string, at least when you use it in a GUI version of Emacs,
has hyperlinks. In particular, vm-rfaddons.el on the first line is a
hyperlink. If you click on it, it will take you to the source code, and you
can check to see what is happening.
Post by blueman
All of this is ok so far, but it seems at least from the function
documentation that we are *losing* the ability to follow-up to multiple
marked messages which was a really *unique* and *nice* feature of
vm. Specifically, one could mark several messages in a thread (for
example) and reply to all of them at once.
Note that `vm-include-text-from-presentation' is a *variable*, not a
function. It is talking about what text is included in the reply. It also
says that it is an experimental feature and should not be used normally.
So, please don't use it unless you have good reason to.
Post by blueman
If I am understanding this correctly, I am not sure why one would want
to regress this function?
I am not regressing it, but it is likely to regress sooner or later because
it is undocumented, unmaintained code that nobody is taking responsibility
for. Be warned!

Cheers,
Uday

Loading...