Re: mutt/2019: menu_context itches (Re: your mail)
Hello Brendan,
On Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 9:46:41 AM -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> I assumed $menu_sticky_bottom was a joke. It raised the eyebrow of
> this english speaker anyway.
Not at all, sticky_bottom and bottom_takeoff were serious.
Sticky_bottom even had my preference. I've seen the word "sticky" in
various UIs. Sticky window, sticky menu, sticky cursor... Snappy also.
What's the problem with sticky_bottom in English?
· $menu_bottom_takeoff = yes by default
· $menu_bottom_liftoff = yes
· $menu_snapped_bottom = no
· $menu_magnetic_bottom = no
· $menu_end_partial = yes
> I think $menu_context makes sense and is a nice parallel to
> $pager_context. Why were we renaming this one again?
Because the *current* $menu_context feature does *not* do the same
as $pager_context. Current $menu_context is minimum visible entries
around cursor, while $pager_context (and future $menu_context) is lines
of overlap after <next-page>.
> So I'd propose: keep $menu_context
For the number of context lines keeped between pages? Yes.
The visible entries around cursor feature seems better matched by
$menu_indicator_margin name. There was only criticism about lenght, and
no viable counter-proposal.
> 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_screen is not so bad, but does not really convey the idea
of menu bottom. The name could cover a completely different hypothetic
feature.
$fill_menu does not fit the menu_* namespace. Strong no.
$menu_fill is yet more unspecific than 1st. Name to feature link
unguessable without RTFM.
Hum... I still prefer $menu_sticky_bottom so far.
Bye! Alain.
--
When you want to reply to a mailing list, please avoid doing so with
Novell GroupWise. This lacks necessary references and breaks threads.