Re: tag-prefix

[Kyle Wheeler <kyle-mutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday, October  2 at 11:21 PM, quoth bill lam:
> Suppose I tag 2 msg inside a thread and then collapse it so that those 
> tag items are invisible. Then tag-prefix (eg ;d) can not operate on 
> those item. Apparently tag-prefix only applies to visible items, is 
> this intended and what is the workaround?

My understanding (and I may be wrong) is that this is intentional. The 
reasoning stems from the "limit" functionality, and is essentially: 
users shouldn't be surprised that something got deleted. Deleting 
things you can't see makes unfortunate, uncorrectable mistakes a very 
real probability. Imagine, for example, that you'd tagged something, 
forgotten about it, and then limited your view, tagged a few things 
and then told mutt to delete all tagged messages. Should the invisible  
tagged message be deleted? There may be a difference of opinion, but 
in the interest of not surprising the user, "no" is perfectly valid. 
And as an alternate behavior to prompting me every time with "do you 
really want to delete this message?" (which would be *really* 
annoying), I think it makes a lot of sense.

Now, whether this argument still ought to apply in the case of 
collapsed threads, I don't know, and that's something worth discussing 
from an interface point of view.

~Kyle
- -- 
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit 
it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they 
can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise 
their revolutionary right to overthrow it.
                                                     -- Abraham Lincoln
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Thank you for using encryption!

iEYEARECAAYFAkjk6V8ACgkQBkIOoMqOI14GSgCg4UnXdVjDDQtzZThVuDoW+bGl
fdMAnjJ+ufnpkaqhO/HOB9vnU3v084Sz
=FlW5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----