* On 06 Apr 2016, Derek Martin wrote: 
> 
> I think you're on to the biggest issue:  Neither Mutt nor the patch
> promote maintainability or extensibility of UI enhancements (I'm not
> really in a position to evaluate this, only stating what I think past
> objections were).  Both Mutt and the patch need to be taught to do
> things the right way, both to make maintaining that feature easier,
> and to make future extensibility more managable.

I'm a big fan of gradual core enhancements that promote extensibility
(including patching).  I don't know that this should be a primary focus
for mutt right now, but I think any community efforts toward this should
be taken seriously.


> FWIW related to this:  One thing I've always wanted to see was to
> create a uniform API for the UI, and also for mailboxes, so that it
> was easier to basically completely replace the UI, and to implement
> new mail store types.  If we used console-based widgets for the UI

I believe there was a discussion a while back -- maybe 10 years or so,
even -- about building on the mx.c framework to make mailbox drivers
more of a thing.  Anyone remember this?

-- 
David Champion • [email protected]

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to