Re: [Mutt] #2874: broken flowed text quoting
#2874: broken flowed text quoting
Comment (by brendan):
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
(''egg on my face'' -- I should double check the regular expression it
uses. Replying to bugs works.)
> 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://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/2874#comment:4>