On Thursday, 3 May, 2007 at 12:16:39 +0200, Alain Bench wrote:
> On Monday, April 30, 2007 at 15:57:20 +0100, N.J. Mann wrote:
>
> > I've left it bound to ',' for now, but...
>
> There is another argument against binding comma: Since ages, by
> default comma is not bound. This fact is well known by users, and they
> frequently use the comma for their custom binds.
I have no problem with it being unbound by default and have said such in
this thread. For me having it bound to a single key-sequence is a must
have and comma was unbound.
> In my humble, <next-folder> is a "risky" function (deleted mails may
> get purged):
But you get the purge prompt just like you do with <change-folder>. If
you have set 'delete' to 'yes' then all bets are off.
> It should not be bound by default to any single key, but to
> a key combination less prone to false moves. Humm... <Esc>m perhaps (can
> be typed <Alt>m on some terminals), with "m" as mailbox.
>
>
> BTW, in Mutt's speak this function doesn't jump to the next
> _folder_, but to the next _mailbox_ (a folder declared in "mailboxes"
> list) with new mail. Nuance. Shouldn't it better read: <next-mailbox>
> "open next mailbox with new mail"?
But, <change-folder> is called change-FOLDER and <next-folder> is a
derivative of <change-folder>. Not that I mind much and you are right
in that it is the mailboxes (with new mail) that <next-folder> sequences
through. The more I think about this the more arguments I see for
either side.
I want the functionality this patch adds, but as to what it is called,
I'll sit on the fence if you don't mind. I'm a developer not a
documentor! ;-)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Please do not CC me on replies, I read the list and don't need the dupes.
