Re: Pattern ~X no longer works?
* On 2007.02.27, in <20070227185304.GC5092@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
* "Kyle Wheeler" <kyle-mutt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Wouldn't this be the case for ALL complex settings (e.g. mailboxes,
> alternates, alternative_order, mime_lookup, etc.)? Why should
> attachment counting be handled specially?
I'd say that it's not currently handled specially, but that what people
are discussing is whether expected behavior requires handling it
specially.
The items you mention have default behaviors when the lists are unset,
but they don't have default lists, and the default behavior is codable
without a list. Same with attachments: if no default list exists,
attachments are simply not counted. This is codable without a list, but
the more complex behavior that users expect is not. (More accurately,
the most efficient way to code a more complex behavior is with a default
list.)
What's being proposed is a default list for attachments as an
alternative to simple default behavior.
--
-D. dgc@xxxxxxxxxxxx NSIT University of Chicago