Re: hook conflicts...
On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 09:36:59AM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
> * David Yitzchak Cohen <lists+mutt_users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2004-05-28 17:22
> -0400]:
> > 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"'
>
> I think, you have to change the order of the send-hooks, too. But the
> additional unhooks seem neccessary.
changing the order of the send-hooks was crucial. "send-hook . ..."
needs to be FIRST in each folder-hook. am not sure yet whether the
additional unhooks are nec, will report back...
m
>
> Nicolas
-------------------------------------------
Matt Price matt.price@xxxxxxxxxxx
History Department, University of Toronto
(416) 978-2094
--------------------------------------------