Re: ; tag-prefix for more than current thread
On 2006-05-16 18:14, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
> * Martin Trautmann <traut@xxxxxx> [2006-05-16 18:04 +0200]:
>> Currently, I got your own mutt-patch-1.3.28.nr.threadcomplete which offers
>> ~a
>
> That's old and obsoleted by an improved version written by <insert the
> name, I can't remember at the moment, here>.
Ah, thanks...
>> I guess, patch-1.5.6+20040904.tg.mutt-thread.3 applies yet another
>> command, such as ~(~T)? patch-1.5.6+20040904.tg.mutt-thread.2 offered the
>> ~a, too.
>
> ~(~T) is an example of what the patch can do. IIRC ~a is only a
> compatibility pattern to be compatible with my patch, I think. But
> IIRC that did not work correctly.
This explains why it was removed in mutt-thread.3.
>> Apart of those patches I'd prefer the more general approach that the
>> tag-prefix could be used in a wider range.
>
> I think this patch is not less general (nor more general) than what
> you want. E.g. you can directly tag all threads containing an old
> message ~(~r>10d).
I guess I'll have to get used to this nested syntax.
> If you don't like that, just write a patch to get what you want.
I wish I could :-(
Martin