On 2007-05-03 14:29:04 +0100, N.J. Mann wrote: > On Thursday, 3 May, 2007 at 12:16:39 +0200, Alain Bench wrote: > > 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.
"mailbox" means the *current* folder in the function names (sort-mailbox, sync-mailbox). So, I think that next-folder is better than next-mailbox. Otherwise, to be more accurate, why not next-unread-folder or next-unread-mailbox? -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
