On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 05:02:13PM EDT, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 04:38:31PM EDT, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > > * David Yitzchak Cohen <lists+mutt_users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2004-05-28 16:11 > > -0400]: > > > folder-hook folder1 'send-hook sweetie "do sweetie stuff"; send-hook . > > > "do folder1 stuff"' > > > folder-hook folder2 'send-hook sweetie "do sweetie stuff"; send-hook . > > > "do folder2 stuff"' > > > folder-hook . 'send-hook sweetie "do sweetie stuff"; send-hook . "do > > > default stuff"' > > > > I think, the '.' should be the first one. And I think you'll need to > > have > > folder-hook . unhook send-hook > > in the beginning. > > ...what he said (thanks, St. Nic) :-) It gets worse: if we're in folder1 or folder2, the default folder-hook will screw up the send-hooks before we get to the folder1 or folder2 folder-hooks (but after we've already unhooked the stale send-hooks from before). In other words, something like this should be best, if I'm correct: folder-hook . 'unhook send-hook; send-hook sweetie "do sweetie stuff"; send-hook . "do default stuff"' folder-hook folder1 'unhook send-hook; send-hook sweetie "do sweetie stuff"; send-hook . "do folder1 stuff"' folder-hook folder2 'unhook send-hook; send-hook sweetie "do sweetie stuff"; send-hook . "do folder2 stuff"' - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgpgCNBnFczSc.pgp
Description: PGP signature