Re: Pattern ~X no longer works?
On 2007-02-27 17:55:04 +0000, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Michael Tatge [07-02-27 18:16:18 +0100] wrote:
> >* On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 Vincent Lefevre (vincent@xxxxxxxxxx) muttered:
> >>On 2007-02-27 15:53:14 +0100, Michael Tatge wrote:
>
> >>Now I wonder why Mutt doesn't have some (useful) defaults, that would
> >>be applied when no attachments statements have been given.
>
> >Because once you do that the feature is activated. And the default is
> >feature not used.
>
> ...because it has performance issues (obviously).
If the user doesn't want performance issues, he shouldn't use ~X.
And obviously, adding attachments statements should have no visible
effect until the user asks to count attachments with ~X.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)