On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 03:08:25AM +0300, Mikko H„nninen cogitated:
> Fairlight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 13 Sep 1999:
> > The bug is that while all messages should be flagged deleted, in truth
> > only those VISIBLE were deleted. Articles hidden in collapsed threads were
> > -not- flagged nor deleted, and were written back out to the folder at quit
> > time.
> >
> > I triple checked the manual just now on mutt.org and ~A is clearly stated
> > as meaning "All messages".
>
> Sounds more like a documentation bug rather than Mutt bug. I wouldn't
> personally expect ~A to match anything *outside* of the limit scope.
> UI'd be very unhappy if I deleted ~A under a limit and then found out
> later I deleted *every* message in the folder (not that I've ever tried
> that).
I'd agree to that except I'm not using the limit command. :) I'm not
limiting by expression at all. I simply have the threads collapsed. To my
mind, there's a large and distinct difference there.
I'm going to try using .* later on in place of ~A and see if that
works...gotta let threads build up in some mailbox first.
> Maybe there should be pattern which matches all messages, even those
> which are outside of the current limit scope? Or maybe there is and I
> just need to RTFM...
I -did- RTFM and "~A All Messages" seems pretty unambiguous. No mention
of scope of limit there. Not that I'm in any way using limit anyway. And
if mutt uses the same routines to collapse threads as it does to limit, I
consider that a bug...but I can't say...I haven't read the source.
In my mind, yes, if you used limit to "select" only certain messages
matching a certain expression or pattern, then ~A should only apply to
those selected. Simply collapsing the thread should be a display function,
not a selection function, at least as I've understood it in any context.
The threaded articles should still be applicable if the first one of the
thread is in the list...see where I'm going?
I basically draw a distinction between selection criterion and the view.
Maybe one of the developers would care to jump in and squash this? I tend
to get carried away in debates on another mailing list and have no wish to
repeat that history here.
No disrespect intended, Mikko...
mark->
--
Fairlight-> ||| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Fairlight Consulting
__/\__ ||| "I'm talking for free... | http://www.fairlite.com
<__<>__> ||| It's a New Religion..." | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\/ ||| PGP Public Key available via finger @iglou, or Key servers
