Re: Pager

To: bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mutt Developers <mutt-dev@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Pager
From: Nicolas Rachinsky <mutt-devel-0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:25:41 +0100
In-reply-to: <20051031111449.GC30803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:mutt-dev-request@mutt.org?Subject="Unsubscribe Mutt Dev"?body=unsubscribe>
Mail-followup-to: bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mutt Developers <mutt-dev@xxxxxxxx>
References: <mutt-pr-2118@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <E1EUOAo-0005aI-IE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20051031111449.GC30803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-mutt-dev@xxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11

* Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2005-10-31 12:14 +0100]:
> Anyway, what I'm getting to is wondering if the bug report that this
> was supposed to fix was bad enough that it merits the effort of the
> correct solution or the ugliness of the current one.  I'd really
> prefer to get rid of the current "gross hack."
> 
> Any thoughts on that?

IMHO the current behaviour is more confusing than the old was.

I don't like the old one, but it seemed more consistent and I had no
real problem with it. The new one is worse.

Nicolas

-- 
http://www.rachinsky.de/nicolas

References:
- Re: mutt/2118: pager line sometimes not reset
  - From: Adeodato Simó
- Pager
  - From: Thomas Roessler

Prev by Date: Re: imap/2119: Ambiguous message "Evaluating cache" when header cache is compiled in but switched off
Next by Date: -pedantic flag and warnings
Previous by thread: Pager
Next by thread: Re: Pager
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread