<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: compose.c,v 3.23



On Wednesday, 03 August 2005 at 17:15, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2005-08-03 07:35:16 -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> 
> > I guess my argument is that toggle-unlink is intuitively like the
> > difference between save-message and copy-message: first you move
> > the attachment somewhere else, then you unlink it. In normal
> > usage (when you send or postpone the message), mutt behaves
> > non-destructively. Having it actually destroy something that
> > can't be recreated, with no warning, seems a little less
> > intuitive.
> 
> I don't think I get your point here.  In normal usage mutt behaves
> "non-destructively" precisely because you don't use toggle-unlink.
> 
> If you use toggle-unlink, you basically tell the program that this
> particular file is temporary, and not worth anything except in the
> context of a message.  From that point of view, it makes perfectly
> sense to delete it if it's removed from the list of attachments.

As I said, I think it's like save-message. You're telling mutt to move
the attachment from you to the recipient. I don't think that's quite
the same thing, and I guess the bug reporter was also quite a bit
surprised by mutt's behaviour. Since there seem to be different
expectations about what mutt should do when detaching, I thought it
was better to be conservative. At the least, I think there should be a
"Really delete this file from disk?" quadopt, default ask-no.

Attachment: pgpqn1bIR5fK1.pgp
Description: PGP signature