On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 09:43:11AM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote: > On 2003-11-14 01:51:07 -0500, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > > > 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?) > > It might be easier to implement a per-variable stack, ...you mean, within Mutt itself? That'd certainly be useful for these types of cases. It'd make my makemuttrc script a lot simpler; that's for sure :-) - 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:
pgpBbKJ4qAOHi.pgp
Description: PGP signature