Re: How do I come back from viewing the message to index?
On Wednesday, August 9, 2006 at 13:03:09 -0400, Derek D. Martin wrote:
> This doesn't really change my opinion
Well, it was not intended to change your opinion, model, nor
preferences. Keep them, they're valid (modulo some egocentric details).
> but it is NOT intuitive, and should not be the default behavior, IMO.
Here is the limit: Your model is valid, but you can't impose it with
its constraints and consequences to other people. You clearly can't
proclaim general lack of intuitiveness. What you say is perhaps true in
your model, but is not an universal truth.
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 03:24:54PM +0200, Alain Bench wrote:
>> By default the [q] key in pager is not bound. What [q] does there is
>> the generic <exit> function.
> Hmm? I don't think this is correct...
You're right, my double fault: No generic bindings at all in pager,
and pager's [q] is really bound to <exit>. By default pager has:
| Q quit save changes to mailbox and quit
| i exit exit this menu
| q exit exit this menu
| x exit exit this menu
> it should be a goal of Mutt to provide the most consistent and
> intuitive interface to its users by default...
I agree on the principle. But the current default perfectly suits my
own preferences and model. My model is also valid. And the [q] behaviour
is quite logic and intuitive in my model.
It can be interesting to compare harm done by unadapted defaults:
· You expect pager [q] to <quit> Mutt. It doesn't, but just <exit>s and
leaves you in index. You have to press [q] again. Irritating, but
harmless.
· I expect pager [q] to <exit> to index. In the hypothesis Mutt has
changed to suit you, [q] would <quit> Mutt, purging unreviewed D mails,
changing N to O, and so on. Irritating, and potentially harmfull.
Bye! Alain.
--
Software should be written to deal with every conceivable error
RFC 1122 / Robustness Principle