Re: mutt/2019: menu_context itches (Re: your mail)
Alain -
* On 2005.08.03, in <20050803172252.GB9066@xxxxxxx>,
* "Alain Bench" <veronatif@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'm puzzled.
Me too. :) Let me try to summarize, and let's disregard for a moment my
description of my observations.
My objection is twofold, but only one part is important to me:
(a) the introduction of menu_move_off in 1.5.8 brought a change in
behavior;
(b) the name "menu_move_off", and the manual's description of it,
are difficult to understand, and furthermore (perhaps because of
this) do not seem to describe what I observe as a user. Because
the manual description is hard to follow, I infer the meaning of
"menu_move_off" from changes I see in its behavior, and it seems
overly complicated, as if it should rather be "menu_move".
I can let (a) go because it concerns a personal preference, and if
others believe it changes mutt's defaults for the better, that's fine.
But I assume I'm not the only person who can't make sense of "move off"
or the manual text. There's usually someone else who reads things the
same way.
> Mutt 1.5.8 introduced around this feature an unfortunate legacy
> behaviour change, *and* a bug creating illogical movements in some
> corner combinations of settings and conditions. AFAICS 1.5.9 and current
> CVS still have this bug.
I believe that's correct, though I haven't done as much testing, and I
still use 1.5.8 in fact. My understanding is that the legacy behavior
change you describe is what I mean in (a) above.
>
> According to thorough testing some monthes ago, Tamo's patch
> corrects *all* these problems. Could you please check? And failing that
> compare it to legacy 1.5.7 or older. Default behaviour is intended to be
> identical.
The patch that Tamo reposted a couple of days ago indeed fixes the
problem, and I'd love to see it applied. Oswald Buddenhagen asked why
we wanted it changed, and (the way I understood him) he preferred for it
to be left alone because we had misunderstood its intended meaning. He
seems to feel that it's fine as is in 1.5.8. (Am I wrong? I don't mean
to misattribute!)
Well, I'll agree that I've misunderstood the meaning of the option name
and description. But if we've misunderstood its intended meaning, then
there's perhaps a documentation problem :) and others will be caught by
it, too. So I suggested an alternate form of the documentation, along
with altered semantics in accordance with Tamo's patch.
I think you and I agree, no? Or do I still misunderstand?
--
-D. dgc@xxxxxxxxxxxx NSIT University of Chicago