David DeSimone on Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 01:25:31PM -0600:
> > I don't understand what %d is for then. It's specified as being the
> > date and time, as specified by $date_format, itself a string parsed
> > by strftime(). It this can be accomplished as easily using the
> > bracketized methods, then why does %d exist?
>
> If I remember rightly, it's a matter of history. "%d" was implemented
> first, then the "%{...}" stuff was added later, to give people more
> control over the formatting.
>
> If you feel that having "%d" in Mutt is bloating the program in a bad
> way, I suppose it could be removed.. :)
It might be better to have %d in $index_format replaced by the strftime
expansion controlled by $date_string, with the brackets around it
specifying only what time is to be given in said format (your time,
sender's time, etc, as it does now), instead of being both that and the
delimiter for what is passed to strftime (since that would then be
already specified in $date_format). In that case %d would be the only
thing allowed between the brackets, and could be used without the
brackets, which would then be equivalent to a default bracket (like `%d'
would be the same as `%{%d}'). $date_format would again have a use, and
the strftime format specification would be centralized in that variable.
But that's a pretty trivial semantic issue, I guess.
--
Scott
