On Thu, 02 Oct 2008, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > On Thursday, October 2 at 11:21 PM, quoth bill lam: > > Suppose I tag 2 msg inside a thread and then collapse it so that those > > tag items are invisible. Then tag-prefix (eg ;d) can not operate on > > those item. Apparently tag-prefix only applies to visible items, is > > this intended and what is the workaround? > > My understanding (and I may be wrong) is that this is intentional. The > reasoning stems from the "limit" functionality, and is essentially: > users shouldn't be surprised that something got deleted. Deleting > things you can't see makes unfortunate, uncorrectable mistakes a very > real probability. Imagine, for example, that you'd tagged something, > forgotten about it, and then limited your view, tagged a few things > and then told mutt to delete all tagged messages. Should the invisible > tagged message be deleted? There may be a difference of opinion, but > in the interest of not surprising the user, "no" is perfectly valid. > And as an alternate behavior to prompting me every time with "do you > really want to delete this message?" (which would be *really* > annoying), I think it makes a lot of sense. > > Now, whether this argument still ought to apply in the case of > collapsed threads, I don't know, and that's something worth discussing > from an interface point of view.
I can agree to your argument, either way half of innocent users will be surprised. Can I make a ;! or ;; that will apply to all tagged items, visible or not? -- regards, ==================================================== GPG key 1024D/4434BAB3 2008-08-24 gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4434BAB3
