On Wednesday, 10 August 2005 at 13:08, TAKAHASHI Tamotsu wrote: > * Tue Aug 9 2005 Brendan Cully <brendan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I think $menu_context makes sense and is a nice parallel to > > $pager_context. Why were we renaming this one again? > > We found it not so parallel. > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mutt-dev&m=111220557314589&w=2 > But I'm not against keeping $menu_context. > > > > So I'd propose: > > keep $menu_context > > and in place of $menu_move: $menu_fill_screen? or just $fill_menu? > > (with the sense inverted, obviously). I actually prefer the latter. Or > > maybe $menu_fill to make Rado happy. > > $menu_fill sounds good. > > So, the conclusion is...? > $menu_context -> $menu_context > (not in 1.5.9)-> $menu_overlap > $menu_move_off-> $menu_fill Ok, I reread the entire old thread, and now I see what you mean about $menu_context not being parallel to $pager_context. I apologize for not having reread it before opening my mouth the last time. Thus, a new set of name suggestions. Let the flaming begin anew. . (not in 1.5.9) -> $menu_context (but can we omit this addition for now? I haven't had time to get over the feeling that this is bloat...) . $menu_context -> $menu_scroll_context ? $indicator_margin (or the more verbose $menu_indicator_margin) might also be ok, but context has an established meaning. This variable should only affect scrolling operations (vs jumping ones), right? . $menu_move_off -> $menu_fill. Hopefully these will polarize people, since there didn't seem to be a clear consensus previously. I'll go test your bugfix patch now...
Attachment:
pgp5gQEgT10DY.pgp
Description: PGP signature