Re: mutt/1128: Re: mutt/1128: new subject breaks thread option
Hello Paul,
On Saturday, July 30, 2005 at 4:45:21 PM +0100, Paul Walker wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 05:04:12PM +0200, Alain Bench wrote:
>> cryptic and illogical as $new_subject_breaks_threads
> Rather than trying to force things into a boolean, why not create a
> "threads" setting, which encompasses what you want plus
> strict_threads?
From a user point of view, one variable, why not. It's discussable.
But the name may mislead people to think that threading is done by
subject in $threads=subject mode. Threading is of course always by
references, plus or minus options.
From implementation POV, such variable would need a new specific
type, like DT_SORT or DT_MAGIC. And all the code around, makedoc and
such. It's perhaps better those types stay rare.
> which takes priority, strict_threads or your variable
Priority? No such problem. In the middle of a potential thread, a
given mail can't be impacted by both vars. Impossible:
+-------+---------------+
| refs | same subject |
+-------+---------------+---------------------------------------+
| yes | yes | linked to thread |
| yes | no | depends on $new_subject_breaks_threads|
| no | yes | depends on $strict_threads & $sort_re |
| no | no | doesn't belong to thread |
+-------+---------------+---------------------------------------+
Now in a thread a branch can be linked weakly thru $strict_threads,
and another branch broken thru $new_subject_breaks_threads. But there is
here no problem of priority.
> your variable (which is long to type ;).
Longer better, was I recently informed by some (hundreds of) very
confidential mails. ;-)
Bye! Alain.
--
« if you believe in Perl, I've got a bridge to sell you. »