Re: change_folder_next patch
On 2007-05-03 14:29:04 +0100, N.J. Mann wrote:
> On Thursday, 3 May, 2007 at 12:16:39 +0200, Alain Bench wrote:
> > BTW, in Mutt's speak this function doesn't jump to the next
> > _folder_, but to the next _mailbox_ (a folder declared in "mailboxes"
> > list) with new mail. Nuance. Shouldn't it better read: <next-mailbox>
> > "open next mailbox with new mail"?
>
> But, <change-folder> is called change-FOLDER and <next-folder> is a
> derivative of <change-folder>. Not that I mind much and you are right
> in that it is the mailboxes (with new mail) that <next-folder> sequences
> through. The more I think about this the more arguments I see for
> either side.
"mailbox" means the *current* folder in the function names (sort-mailbox,
sync-mailbox). So, I think that next-folder is better than next-mailbox.
Otherwise, to be more accurate, why not next-unread-folder or
next-unread-mailbox?
--
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)