On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:31:41PM +0000, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > I hate programming with macros (I prefer functional programming) and I > don't use Mutt's macros much, but the way you solve this sort of > problem in macro programming languages (like LaTeX) is to use a macro > to remember the current state of $resolve. This macro gets redefined > by every macro that changes $resolve. So you might have a macro > save-resolve that redefines restore-resolve to invoke either > set-resolve or clear-resolve, each of which redefines save-resolve as > appropriate. It's fun to debug, and it's good practice for using > LaTeX. I don't know if this was a joke or not, but I sure hope we don't have to do something like that in order to save and restore variable values in Mutt. I'd rather rewrite all my "set resolve=blablabla" statements into something like `makemuttrc set resolve=blablabla` and have makemuttrc produce the set code and update its own saved version of the old one. That way, you can restore it using something like `makemuttrc restore resolve`. (I'm actually leaning towards the possibility of writing a full-blown version of such a script/program, as it'll really simplify many of my Mutt RC files. Has anybody else done something similar already?) - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgpQGsdoayHL4.pgp
Description: PGP signature