Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utfyzx!sq!msb
From: msb@sq.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.misc,news.software.notes
Subject: Re: Current notes or sequencing vnews or ...?
Message-ID: <1987Apr8.182326.15514@sq.uucp>
Date: Wed, 8-Apr-87 18:23:26 EST
Article-I.D.: sq.1987Apr8.182326.15514
Posted: Wed Apr  8 18:23:26 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Apr-87 05:41:42 EST
References: <403@haddock.UUCP> <1674@lsuc.UUCP> <6122@mimsy.UUCP> <429@haddock.UUCP>
Reply-To: msb@sq.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Distribution: na
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto
Lines: 81
Xref: utgpu news.misc:249 news.software.notes:26
Checksum: 55674
Summary: rn questions answered

This was going to be a mailed response, but I decided that enough of it
might be of general interest that I would post it.

> Hi; me again.  I'm the sucker that started this one.  After a bit of a
> search, I found the manual page, so I finally *could* RTFM.  It's true,
> the -S option isn't nearly as nice as the way notes does it.  The article
> and responses are all sort of jumbled together in any order, with the
> article not necessarily first.

This is true, but you must remember that the notion that there IS an
"article" and "responses" is unique to notes.  Whether it is a feature
or a bug is probably a religious issue.  Remember that new chains of
discussion often start from side points in articles are are themselves
followups -- this means that the real followup structure is tree-like.

> Also, notes has the '-' command that
> backs up one response, and the '=' command that returns to the original
> article from any response.  I find I use these a lot, and so far I can't
> figure out how to get rn to do them.

In rn the '-' command returns you to the last article you saw (provided it
was in the same group).  The last-article memory only holds one number, so
a second '-' takes you back where you were.  But you can do a backwards
subject-search with control-P.  This searches for the next lower numbered
article with the same subject whether already read or not.   (rn has three
forward- and three backward-moving commands.  Control-N and control-P do
subject-searching; n and p take the next unread article, except that the
-S option makes n work like control-N; and N and P take the numerically
next article whether already read or not.)  There is no equivalent in rn
to the notes '=', since the base-article concept is absent.

In rn if a group has about 10-20 unread articles I often do an rn '=' to see
what there is, and if a discussion seems to be out of order (i.e. if there
is a "Re: x" subject and later an "x"), I go directly to what seems to be
the first article and then use control-P to find the other one.  I have
personalized '=' using SUBJLINE to display more information.  (RT*M or
mail to me for details.)

> Also, notes has a 'S' command which is like the 's' command, but it stores
> the entire chain of articles (original + responses) to a file.  I use this
> much more than the 's' command.  TFM for rn doesn't seem to describe any
> command that does this.

Use the '/' command to repeat, say, an 's' command:

	/string/:s file

To include already-read articles, insert an 'r' before the colon.
To make "the current article's subject" the string, type %s at
that point, or escape-s if you want to see it expanded as you type.

If this is too much typing and you want to do it often, you can define
a macro of, say, one or two characters for it.  For that, RT*M.

> I'm
> just noting that the folks around here are using both of these user agents,
> and are not really perfectly satisfied with either.  Even their strongest
> partisans give each one lukewarm praise at best.

That's probably why...they embody different conceptions.  People in the 
non-notes world are used to a different model, and think it natural,
and tend to like rn a LOT.  I do.

(This is not to say that rn is perfect: for instance, the subject search
mode doesn't work well if some articles have a subject that's a substring
of others' subject.  But I find it very good.)

> I especially like the idea of merging mail and news agents.  They really
> do very similar things, after all.  Why have two slightly different tools
> for slightly different jobs, when maybe one general tool will do?  [Well,
> yes, I do have more than one screwdriver, now that you mention it.]

Because they're not slightly different jobs.  Mail agents are for scanning
a relatively low-volume stream of messages sent personally to you, some of
which may require rapid response.  News agents are for scanning a relatively
high-volume, highly structured tree of messages, directed to the world at
large and therefore not requiring rapid response from you, to find the few
that are in fact of interest to you.

Mark Brader			"But I do't have a '' key o my termial."
utzoo!sq!msb						   -- Lynn Gold