On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 09:16:03AM +0200, Byrial Jensen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 09:42:15 +0100, Dave Pearson wrote:
> > According to section 6.3.27 of the mutt manual (I'm running 1.2.5i here) the
> > variable `date_format' "controls the format of the date printed by the
> > ``%d'' sequence in ``index_format''".
> >
> > Further, section 6.3.73 says that the %d and %D sequences display the date
> > and time of a message "in the format specified by ``date_format''".
> >
> > However, it would appear that `date_format' doesn't (quite rightly?) work
> > for all uses of the `index_format' sequences.
>
> Would it? Not to me.
To quote section 6.3.27:
,----
| 6.3.27. date_format
|
| Type: string
| Default: "!%a, %b %d, %Y at %I:%M:%S%p %Z"
|
| This variable controls the format of the date printed by the ``%d''
| sequence in ``index_format''.
`----
if it doesn't say that it will affect `index_format' what does it mean when
it says that it controls the format of the date printed by "%d" when used in
`index_format'? In the tests I've done here it doesn't do that. Using %d and
changing `date_format' has no affect on the display of an index.
To quote section 6.3.73:
,----
| %d date and time of the message in the format
| specified by ``date_format'' converted to
| sender's time zone
| %D date and time of the message in the format
| specified by ``date_format'' converted to
| the local time zone
`----
This, again, suggests that the index display of dates can be controlled by
the variable `date_format'.
> > Is this a documentation bug?
>
> I don't see any bug here.
The bug I'm thinking of is the one above, where it says that it affects
`index_format' when it doesn't appear to do so.
--
Take a look in Hagbard's World: | mutt.octet.filter - autoview octet-streams
http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | mutt.vcard.filter - autoview simple vcards
http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | muttrc2html - muttrc -> HTML utility
Free software, including........| muttrc.sl - Jed muttrc mode
