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

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