On Tuesday, 14 November 2006 at 19:19, Rocco Rutte wrote: > Hi, > > * Brendan Cully [06-11-14 10:20:26 -0800] wrote: > > >I think it'd probably be good to try to unify the progress code > >somehow, so that things using read_inc/write_inc/search_inc/net_inc go > >through the same code path. And I think the way to save screen updates > >might be to cache the last value (I think there's a field for that in > >the progress bar struct) and skip printing if the value is unchanged. > > Okay. I think I've looked at that idea once but got stuck with the way > mbox does it for read_inc (via ftell() IIRC to get very exact progress). > > I hope I'll have some more time this week to look into again. Hmm. I suppose there's probably a reason I didn't integrate them when I first added mutt_progress_bar. Then again, it may just have been laziness. btw I prefer skipping display if the content is the same to time-based checks because it more accurately reflects *_inc (as well as saving a context switch :) > >Also, I think it's fine if read_inc controls search progress as > >well. Searching can be seen as a form of reading. > > Okay. Once done, it shouldn't be too complicated to re-add $search_inc > if in case people don't mind... sure.
Attachment:
pgpbyQUcGifiF.pgp
Description: PGP signature