Re: patch: signin & signoff feature (1.5.18)
This entire discussion should be on mutt-dev. Followups set.
> Why can you set sig_dashes, if you could set it via signature?
"signature" can be a file or a program. The signature turns out to
be whatever is read from the file or whatever is printed to stdout
by the program. This file or program may or may not include the
dashes, so there's an option to let you tell mutt whether to assist
by including them.
The only simplification that doesn't remove functionality is to always
assume that the signature provides its own dashes, and eliminate the
sig_dashes variable. I would say that the reason for not doing that is
that it's an extra hurdle for new users, who most likely assume that
only the signature proper should be in the signature file. (If you're
using a signature program, it's reasonable to assume you're an advanced
Maybe "conditionally redundant" describes sig_dashes, but it's not
absolutely redundant. It may be redundant, but it depends on what
the signature actually produces.
I guess the proposed "signoff" variable is similarly "conditionally
redundant", but logically we can:
* express signoff in terms of sig_dashes + signature, or
* express signature in terms of sig_dashes + signoff, or
* express sig_dashes in terms of signoff + signature.
Having all three is strictly redundant, so adding signoff adds
complexity. Adding a variable should introduce simplicity, convenience,
functionality, or some other value. It doesn't add simplicity or
functionality. Does it really add convenience? How often do you need
to change this in a way that you can't as easily change sig_dashes and
-D. dgc@xxxxxxxxxxxx NSIT University of Chicago