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