[Assuming you don't want a Cc; please set up a MFT header] Re: Martin Trautmann in <20040213155248.GE19145@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > An auto-tag <Esc>t would behave different than the ordinary <Esc>t. But it > would behave correct, wouldn't it? With $auto_tag, <esc>t behaves as ;<esc>t was pressed. This means you can't tag threads any more once any other message is tagged; you have to tag a message in the thread first (t) and then press <esc>t. This is ugly. I'm beginning to think that makeing $auto_tag a special case in your patch really makes sense. (Though I don't know how easy it is to tell $auto_tag from <tag-prefix>.) > > Have you looked at the threadcomplete [1] patch? It achieves a similar > > thing, but much more flexible. > > > > [1] http://www.rachinsky.de/nicolas/mutt.html > > I don't know this yet - it's a different approach. Apart from being yet > another option '~a', it's even more complicated to understand !~a for me. I > guess I just did not have any nead for the later one, while the first one > (extending tags of partially tagged threads) is a daily business to me. I guess you really don't need !~a (I don't). If completing threads is important for you, make it a macro: macro index ,a <tag-pattern>~a<enter> Christoph -- cb@xxxxxxxx | http://www.df7cb.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature