Because I found myself more than often "missing" the behaviour as given
by the original patch, I changed that patch slightly to work in the
current sources.
In case someone else just preferred the original patch's behaviour over
the one implemented in Mutt, here is the patch:
http://overlays.gent
This is another case for mutt-ot, MFT+RT set, works only for
subscribers, hope to see you there.
=- Alain Bench wrote on Tue 5.Jun'07 at 15:50:45 +0200 -=
> [changing defaults]
> For this and other debates: Don't waste time and energy fighting
> against stability in itself. Stability is a go
=- Alain Bench wrote on Tue 5.Jun'07 at 15:50:45 +0200 -=
> [The Comma]
> > let's make it "official reservation"
>
> Users are free to use this or any other binding scheme, at will: I
> don't think that making this one official or even only preferred
> in user docs makes much sense. Putting
On Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 15:45:44 +0200, Rado Smiljanic wrote:
[The Comma]
> let's make it "official reservation"
Users are free to use this or any other binding scheme, at will:
I don't think that making this one official or even only preferred in
user docs makes much sense. Putting
=- Alain Bench wrote on Thu 24.May'07 at 13:59:13 +0200 -=
> > ',' is not everybody's favourite position to use on the
> > keyboard, so examples are adapted.
>
> Yes, sure. But when examples bind say ",@r13on", that's not
> intented to be a key sequence typed by a human.
> IIRC the full story abo
On Monday, May 21, 2007 at 17:57:02 +0200, Rado Smiljanic wrote:
[binding comma]
> we have no idea how many people use any other potential key.
We may imagine. If we neglect the tradition about comma, we can
half-safely imagine that users bind any single free key more or less
equally. Fo
=- Alain Bench wrote on Sat 19.May'07 at 16:50:46 +0200 -=
> [binding comma]
> > Comma is not by itself special, _you make it_ (or want it to be)
> > special.
>
> I indeed use myself and advice this usage of the comma, but
> haven't invented it: It was already a traditional usage when I
> beg
On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 20:33:34 +0200, Rado Smiljanic wrote:
[binding comma]
> Comma is not by itself special, _you make it_ (or want it to be)
> special.
I indeed use myself and advice this usage of the comma, but haven't
invented it: It was already a traditional usage when I began
=- Alain Bench wrote on Mon 14.May'07 at 21:51:29 +0200 -=
> [we're too long: Let's snip drastically]
I hope this means just redundancy, not unique topics. ;)
> [binding comma] We can, and should, avoid creating useless
> problems for no benefit. Binding comma is not necessary, and would
> c
On Saturday, May 12, 2007 at 16:10:13 +0200, Rado Smiljanic wrote:
[we're too long: Let's snip drastically]
[binding comma]
We can, and should, avoid creating useless problems for no benefit.
Binding comma is not necessary, and would create problems to some users.
Let's just not do it
=- Alain Bench wrote on Fri 11.May'07 at 16:03:56 +0200 -=
> This touches the /new / vs /modifier $var/ debate.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the last one (or I'm running out of
RAM and it was overwritten ;), what was it about, when did it
happen, where can I read about this?
> Modifier var see
Hi Rado and Gary,
On Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 20:23:24 +0200, Rado Smiljanic wrote:
> why do we need the extra function? [...] Is it just so that this
> action can be executed with a single key?
> macro index
> If there's no new, nothing happens.
This touches the /new / vs /modifier
On Thursday, May 10 at 09:23 AM, quoth Gary Johnson:
On 2007-05-10, Kyle Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday, May 10 at 03:57 PM, quoth Fabian Groffen:
Sorry if I missed the answer to my question in the thread, but how can I
get the behaviour of the original patch? I don't like 'c'
On 2007-05-10, Kyle Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 10 at 03:57 PM, quoth Fabian Groffen:
> > Sorry if I missed the answer to my question in the thread, but how can I
> > get the behaviour of the original patch? I don't like 'c' jumping
> > immediately to the next folder,
On Thursday, May 10 at 03:57 PM, quoth Fabian Groffen:
Sorry if I missed the answer to my question in the thread, but how
can I get the behaviour of the original patch? I don't like 'c'
jumping immediately to the next folder, as I want to choose it
myself, just getting Mutt's suggestion for th
On 07-05-2007 11:52:25 -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> > BTW, in Mutt's speak this function doesn't jump to the next
> > _folder_, but to the next _mailbox_ (a folder declared in "mailboxes"
> > list) with new mail. Nuance. Shouldn't it better read:
> > "open next mailbox with new mail"?
>
> Ok
I'm sorry for the noise, Alain, I fired off before noticing reponses
in #mutt explaining what it really does. ;-/
=- Gary Johnson wrote on Wed 9.May'07 at 12:22:31 -0700 -=
> On 2007-05-09, Rado S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I admit, I haven't followed from the beginning and even
> > retroact
On 2007-05-09, Rado S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> =- Alain Bench wrote on Wed 9.May'07 at 18:42:49 +0200 -=
>
> > > I have no problem with it being unbound by default
> >
> > This function is very handy, and have good chances to quickly
> > become the primary way of changing folders for some no
=- Alain Bench wrote on Wed 9.May'07 at 18:42:49 +0200 -=
> > I have no problem with it being unbound by default
>
> This function is very handy, and have good chances to quickly
> become the primary way of changing folders for some non-negligable
> amount of Mutt users. It *wants* a default bin
Hi Nick, Vincent, and Rado,
On Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 14:29:04 +0100, N.J. Mann wrote:
> I have no problem with it being unbound by default
This function is very handy, and have good chances to quickly become
the primary way of changing folders for some non-negligable amount of
Mutt users
On Thursday, 03 May 2007 at 12:16, Alain Bench wrote:
> Hello Nick,
>
> On Monday, April 30, 2007 at 15:57:20 +0100, N.J. Mann wrote:
>
> > I've left it bound to ',' for now, but...
>
> There is another argument against binding comma: Since ages, by
> default comma is not bound. This fact i
=- Alain Bench wrote on Thu 3.May'07 at 12:16:39 +0200 -=
> > I've left it bound to ',' for now, but...
>
> There is another argument against binding comma: Since ages, by
> default comma is not bound. This fact is well known by users, and
> they frequently use the comma for their custom binds.
On 2007-05-03 14:29:04 +0100, N.J. Mann wrote:
> On Thursday, 3 May, 2007 at 12:16:39 +0200, Alain Bench wrote:
> > BTW, in Mutt's speak this function doesn't jump to the next
> > _folder_, but to the next _mailbox_ (a folder declared in "mailboxes"
> > list) with new mail. Nuance. Shouldn't i
On Thursday, 3 May, 2007 at 12:16:39 +0200, Alain Bench wrote:
> On Monday, April 30, 2007 at 15:57:20 +0100, N.J. Mann wrote:
>
> > I've left it bound to ',' for now, but...
>
> There is another argument against binding comma: Since ages, by
> default comma is not bound. This fact is well
Hello Nick,
On Monday, April 30, 2007 at 15:57:20 +0100, N.J. Mann wrote:
> I've left it bound to ',' for now, but...
There is another argument against binding comma: Since ages, by
default comma is not bound. This fact is well known by users, and they
frequently use the comma for their cus
> Again, all comments gratefully received.
I've pushed this to main, thanks.
pgpQ6lC5RyNMj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Monday, 30 April, 2007 at 07:15:56 +0100, N.J. Mann wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 April, 2007 at 18:45:48 -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> > On Saturday, 14 April 2007 at 14:02, N.J. Mann wrote:
[...]
> > > +++ OPS Thu Apr 12 21:07:23 2007
> > > @@ -107,6 +107,7 @@
> > > OP_MAIN_LAST_MESSAGE "move to t
On Sunday, 29 April, 2007 at 18:45:48 -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> On Saturday, 14 April 2007 at 14:02, N.J. Mann wrote:
> > On Friday, 13 April, 2007 at 15:51:21 +0100, N.J. Mann wrote:
> > > On Friday, 13 April, 2007 at 12:24:14 +0100, N.J. Mann wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, 29 March, 2007 at 16:0
On Saturday, 14 April 2007 at 14:02, N.J. Mann wrote:
> Hi Brendan,
>
> On Friday, 13 April, 2007 at 15:51:21 +0100, N.J. Mann wrote:
> > On Friday, 13 April, 2007 at 12:24:14 +0100, N.J. Mann wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 29 March, 2007 at 16:03:15 -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure whe
Hi Brendan,
On Friday, 13 April, 2007 at 15:51:21 +0100, N.J. Mann wrote:
> On Friday, 13 April, 2007 at 12:24:14 +0100, N.J. Mann wrote:
> > On Thursday, 29 March, 2007 at 16:03:15 -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> > > On Monday, 05 March 2007 at 13:43, Antoine Reilles wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
>
> Hi Brendan,
>
>
On Friday, 13 April, 2007 at 12:24:14 +0100, N.J. Mann wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 March, 2007 at 16:03:15 -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> > On Monday, 05 March 2007 at 13:43, Antoine Reilles wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > A patch to add a (change_folder_next) option to mutt was propo
Hi Brendan,
On Thursday, 29 March, 2007 at 16:03:15 -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> On Monday, 05 March 2007 at 13:43, Antoine Reilles wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > A patch to add a (change_folder_next) option to mutt was proposed long
> > time ago. It allow the change-folder command to start at the fold
A,
D. This is what I usually want, but requires state to be kept.
I assume that the current way of doing it is just looking for folders
with a flag of having new mail or not, and the change_folder_next patch
just changes the starting point of that search, which to me indeed is
best done with an option.
My 0.02 e :)
On Monday, 05 March 2007 at 13:43, Antoine Reilles wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A patch to add a (change_folder_next) option to mutt was proposed long
> time ago. It allow the change-folder command to start at the folder
> after the current folder. The reason is that it may be annoying
> that the 'c' (change
On Monday, 5 March, 2007 at 13:43:11 +0100, Antoine Reilles wrote:
>
> A patch to add a (change_folder_next) option to mutt was proposed long
> time ago. It allow the change-folder command to start at the folder
> after the current folder. The reason is that it may be annoying
> that the 'c' (ch
Hi,
A patch to add a (change_folder_next) option to mutt was proposed long
time ago. It allow the change-folder command to start at the folder
after the current folder. The reason is that it may be annoying
that the 'c' (change-folder) command always starts from the first
folder in the mailboxes
36 matches
Mail list logo
