[Mutt] #2875: Re: #2874 ("> " quoting with f-f)
#2875: Re: #2874 ("> " quoting with f-f)
{{{
On Tuesday, 10 April 2007 at 09:51, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Sorry, writing to the list since trac claims to have sent me a
> password but apparently hasn't yet...
You can also reply to bugs by email, by the way. Just make sure the
subject includes #bugnumber (in this case, "#2874"). It should even
pick up attachments. You will be TMDA-challenged the first time
though.
> This bug happens for anyone without text_flowed set. In that case
> s->prefix is set to "> " and then another space is added in
> print_flowed_line. Before, there were complaints about getting ">foo"
> for f-f; now we get "> foo" (two spaces).
>
> print_indent is applying s->prefix (i.e. Prefix, indent_string) for the
> outermost level of quoting, i.e. the one added by "reply". Then it's
> applying a literal '>' for each level of quoting in what you're
> replying to. Then it's adding a literal space. This seems very
> confused to me. Maybe it should apply s->prefix each time?
I _think_ (Rocco is the expert here) the rationale for this is to
preserve the flowability of the quoted text if possible. Even if the
text itself isn't marked as flowed (OPTTEXTFLOWED is unset), later
replies that are flowed may rescue the quoted text. I'd be tempted to
try even harder at this: if the line is a flowed line, ignore
s->prefix and just use '>'. But if we aren't motivated to preserve
flowability, repeating s->prefix makes sense to me.
> Meanwhile, I'm using this. I imagine it will still lead to funny
> quoting, like "> >>> foo", but at least it's better than nothing.
It's probably better to just make the space stuffing in
print_flowed_line conditional on OPTTEXTFLOWED (or s->prefix).
}}}
--
Ticket URL: <http://www.mutt.org/ticket/2875>