Re: trash folder patch?
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:37:30PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 02:57:13PM -0500, Will Fiveash wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 06:52:15AM -0700, Michael Elkins wrote:
> > > Was there ever any consensus on the trash folder patch. Some
> > > mutt-users were asking about it, and I note that Debian has been
> > > including it in their package for quite some time.
> >
> > If it can be done via macro then I would be against complicating the
> > mutt code base.
>
> Adding a feature does not automatically translate to increased
> complexity. Particularly if the feature is very modular, direct
> integration is usually the right answer, because it makes the user's
> life easier (i.e. there's no need for hundreds or thousands of users
> to all separately implement the same solution for the same common
> problem, and much less time is wasted discussing how to do it, as you
> can just point people to the manual when the question comes up).
>
> Even in the case where a feature genuinely adds significant
> complexity, deciding not to include it solely on that basis without
> considering its merits is the Wrong Thing (TM). This is generally a
> very bad argument against including new features.
My take is that if the desired function can be achieved via existing
mutt functionality then why add duplicate code. As to usability,
example trash macros could be in the example muttrc and documented in
the mutt manual.
At some point additional code starts to work against one of mutt's
strong points, that being a fast, light weight mail app.
--
Will Fiveash