On Sat, Feb 06, 1999 at 07:16:15PM -0500, Vikas Agnihotri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 06, 1999 at 12:44:47PM -0800, Daniel Eisenbud wrote:
>
> > > Hm. Mutt's pattern language doesnt care what the sorting method is. It
> > > evaluates each message as per the criteria you specify. I guess what
> > > you are asking for is to treat the thread as one "atomic" unit and tag
> > > the entire thread if at least one message in it matches?
>
> > How about the following: we make keybindings for thread-set-flag and
> > thread-clear-flag. This is trivial, because (I think) we already have
> > code to do it. Then we make sure the tag-prefix applies to these
> > commands correctly. So you could tag a bunch of messages, and then do
> > tag-prefix thread-setflag t. Sound OK? This would be more generally
>
> Well, 't' is a toggle...so the above would un-tag the messages tagged
> earlier while tagging the remaining messages in the thread. But I get
> the gist.
Sorry, I meant '*', not 't'. 't' isn't recognized by
> Still, the 2-pass approach (from the user's perspective) is not
> terribly elegant. Having a boolean $smart_tag which will do what I
> mention above sounds more elegant (to me, at least). Internally, it
> would mean, tag the messages as per the given tag-pattern. Then run
> thru the folder and for all threads, see if at least one member is
> tagged, if so, tag the entire thread (mutt_thread_set_flag() already
> exists, BTW)
A boolean $smart_tag isn't a good idea at all. Maybe a different
keybinding, but I don't think it should be an option, because people
might reasonably want to do both. So just like we have tag and
tag-thread, we could have tag-pattern and tag-pattern-thread. A little
complicated, but I think it would be much nicer than having the behavior
of tag-pattern set by an option. I don't think the latter would be very
coherent. But I prefer my approach, because it already captializes on
existing infrastructure, and it solves the problem below in addition.
> > useful, too, for taggin a bunch of messages, and then marking the
> > threads they were in as new, or whatever.
>
> Hm. This does sound useful.
I've wished for this quite a few times recently, I just haven't gotten
around to doing anything about it.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Eisenbud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
