On 2000.05.26, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"David DeSimone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Champion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe the original poster (I forgot who...) would be OK with
> > "unbind * *" and "unmacro * *".
>
> But there is no "unbind" nor "unmacro" command...
I
David Champion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Maybe the original poster (I forgot who...) would be OK with
> "unbind * *" and "unmacro * *".
But there is no "unbind" nor "unmacro" command...
--
David DeSimone | "The doctrine of human equality reposes on this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | that there
> David Champion:
> Maybe the original poster (I forgot who...) would be OK with
> "unbind * *" and "unmacro * *".
and, finalizing this thread, should this not be the default content of the
default fallback etc/Muttrc?
--
clemens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> David DeSimone:
> Mikko Hänninen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > That's good as an option, but then the problem would be that you can't
> > have an independent stand-alone binary that works even with no
> > resource files...
>
> Is this really one of the design goals of Mutt? I don't see a
On 2000.05.25, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"David DeSimone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mikko Hänninen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > That's good as an option, but then the problem would be that you can't
> > have an independent stand-alone binary that works even with no
> > resource file
Gero Treuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 26 May 2000:
> What about making the help screen a menu ...
> ? must be hardcoded, or a comparable solution.
No, you can bind that to ? if you can use the enter-command function.
"help" is a bindable function just like any other...
But this discussi
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 04:00:26AM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> That's good as an option, but then the problem would be that you can't
> have an independent stand-alone binary that works even with no resource
> files... It would be useless (without a .muttrc), you couldn't even add
> your own c
Mikko Hänninen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's good as an option, but then the problem would be that you can't
> have an independent stand-alone binary that works even with no
> resource files...
Is this really one of the design goals of Mutt? I don't see a problem
with getting people used
David DeSimone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 24 May 2000:
> This tongue-in-cheek comment is actually not a bad idea: Do not
> hard-code any of the keybindings in the Mutt source, but instead set the
> defaults in the system Muttrc. This way, it is possible for a site to
> implement their pre
David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One way might be to have mutt ship with no bindings and let you roll
> all of your own ;-)
This tongue-in-cheek comment is actually not a bad idea: Do not
hard-code any of the keybindings in the Mutt source, but instead set the
defaults in the system Mutt
Chris, et al --
...and then Chris Green said...
% On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 05:13:10PM -0500, Larry P. Schrof wrote:
% >
% > generic binding seems to be broke. Am I doing something wrong?
% >
% > bind generic j previous-entry
% > bind generic k next-entry
% > bind index j noop
% > bind index k no
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 05:13:10PM -0500, Larry P. Schrof wrote:
> Mutt version:
>
> Mutt 1.0.1i (2000-01-18)
>
> Is this a bug?
> ==
>
> generic binding seems to be broke. Am I doing something wrong?
>
> bind generic j previous-entry
> bind generic k next-entry
> bind index j noop
> Larry P. Schrof:
> When I hit 'k' or 'j' in the index, it gives me a "Key is not bound."
> error. Yet, when I go to the binding listing screen (by hitting '?'),
> 'j' and 'k' show up in the generic bindings section as bound to the
> functions I assigned.
think about it over a nice cup of hot
Mutt version:
Mutt 1.0.1i (2000-01-18)
Is this a bug?
==
generic binding seems to be broke. Am I doing something wrong?
bind generic j previous-entry
bind generic k next-entry
bind index j noop
bind index k noop
When I hit 'k' or 'j' in the index, it gives me a "Key is not bound."
14 matches
Mail list logo
