On Mar 28, Sven Guckes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > * Jeremy Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-27 23:49]: > > > Sven [adding one more item for the pet peeves list] > > The un* functions are pretty clean; I doubt it would be very hard to > > scratch this one if it itches you. > > so much for theory.
? > well, i find it bad by design that "message-hook" does not have an > matching "unmessage-hook" command. There's really no difference between 'unmessage-hook', 'unsend-hook', 'unfoo-hook', etc. vs. 'unhook message-hook', etc. It could be argued either was cleaner than the other, for different reasons. In the end it's just semantics. But if you don't like it, by all means submit a diff to extend the functionality. > this should be taken care of before mutt-1.4 ships. Er, is there any conceivable change you *don't* think should be done before 1.4 ships? It's called perspective. Try it sometime. > then again, obviously not many people are using it. ?
msg26327/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
