On August 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
IMHO it is more easier to understand, maintain and think in
display layouts, than in fields, but let's hear what you
think about it?
Looks fine to me...
Cheers,
Waider.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / Yes, it /is/ very personal of me.
disclaimer: As I have
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Colin Rafferty spake:
Robert Fenk wrote:
bbdb-one-line-display-fields (bbdb-elided-display-fields)
list of fields which should be displayed in one-line display
This is the exact opposite of the -elided- version, and a bad choice.
If I add a new field interactively,
On Monday, August 6 2001 10:15:30, Colin Rafferty wrote:
[...]
I hate changing names just for the sake of changing names.
Well me too, but they are not just changed for the sake of
changing names, but also for minor functionality changes and
better naming.
Your are right,
On Tuesday, August 7 2001 08:19:53, Thomas E Deweese wrote:
[...]
There are minor functionality changes, that may or may not warrent
a name change, but 'better naming' _is_ just changing names for the
sake of changing names.
Well, we could argue on this for quite some while.
IMHO for the
Thomas E Deweese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are minor functionality changes, that may or may not warrent
a name change, but 'better naming' _is_ just changing names for the
sake of changing names.
it depends on why it is better...
the question is whom we want to inconvenience more.
On Sunday, August 5 2001 02:30:59, Ronan Waide wrote:
I don't know how much duplication of effort - if any - is
involved in having both systems present.
A few lines. Apparently my commit has broken the old
behavior :/ but I have a fix already handy.
What I think needs to be done is for
Robert Fenk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
bbdb-default-display-mode (bbdb-elided-display)
either one-line, multi-line or 'full
bbdb-pop-up-default-display-mode (bbdb-pop-up-elided-display)
either one-line, multi-line or 'full
I don't think the names should end in mode if we are not
Robert Fenk wrote:
On Sunday, August 5 2001 02:30:59, Ronan Waide wrote:
What I think needs to be done is for bbdb-elided-display
to go away (or be replaced with some aliasing and a bunch
of warnings to say it /will/ go away), and be replaced
with a combination of your code and the
On Monday, August 6 2001 14:44:55, Alex Schroeder wrote:
Robert Fenk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
bbdb-default-display-mode (bbdb-elided-display)
either one-line, multi-line or 'full
bbdb-pop-up-default-display-mode (bbdb-pop-up-elided-display)
either one-line, multi-line or 'full
On August 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I hate changing names just for the sake of changing names.
Yup, agreed, but it appears that the number of people who think of the
word 'elided' when trying to figure out optional field display is
getting smaller and smaller - I must confess to being
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Fenk wrote on Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:58:38 +0200:
Robert bbdb-default-display-mode (bbdb-elided-display)
Robert either one-line, multi-line or 'full
Robert bbdb-pop-up-default-display-mode (bbdb-pop-up-elided-display)
Robert either one-line,
On Fri, 03 Aug 2001, David S. Goldberg gibbered:
DG I want a full listing, in multiple lines, minus a couple fields.
DG Robert's patch does this. bbdb-elided-display does not.
Yes, it does...
Thanks! Is that new in the 2.3* versions? I don't recall that being
possible
On Friday, August 3 2001 10:55:11, Thomas E Deweese wrote:
[...]
Yes, it does...
But not as I thought it should be.
I want elided display by default and when I switch to full
display I do not want to see some fields.
Neither way of setting bbdb-elided-display provides this.
whne setting it
On Friday, August 3 2001 21:41:12, Ronan Waide wrote:
On August 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
How is this different from `bbdb-elided-display'?
DG I want a full listing, in multiple lines, minus a couple fields.
DG Robert's patch does this. bbdb-elided-display does not.
Yes,
On August 4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It is not exactly the same feature AFAIS, see the other mail
I sent.
bbdb-elided-display affects the default display mode:
whether it is one line or a listing. I would propose to
remove the omitting of fields from bbdb-elided-display,
but that breaks
DG == David S Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DG I want a full listing, in multiple lines, minus a couple fields.
DG Robert's patch does this. bbdb-elided-display does not.
Yes, it does...
DG [...]
DG Thanks! Is that new in the 2.3* versions?
I don't think so, but it's hard to
DG I want a full listing, in multiple lines, minus a couple fields.
DG Robert's patch does this. bbdb-elided-display does not.
Yes, it does...
[...]
Thanks! Is that new in the 2.3* versions? I don't recall that being
possible previously. The only question then would be is there an
On , July 31 2001 12:43:18, Doug Alcorn wrote:
Robert Fenk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- omitting fields of records by listing them in the
variable `bbdb-display-omit-fields', e.g. pilot-id!
Excellent! Thanks for jumping on this so fast!
The code was there for about 2 month, but I
Hi,
I have just committed some code which provides the following
enhancements:
- omitting fields of records by listing them in the
variable `bbdb-display-omit-fields', e.g. pilot-id!
- changing the default order of fields in full display by
setting `bbdb-display-fields-order'
- editing of a
Robert Fenk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- omitting fields of records by listing them in the
variable `bbdb-display-omit-fields', e.g. pilot-id!
Excellent! Thanks for jumping on this so fast!
One thing I noticed: there doesn't seem to be a good way to toggle
between omiting the omitted
20 matches
Mail list logo
