On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 03:54:12PM +0200, Walter Alejandro Iglesias wrote: > Hi Rene, > > First of all, thank you for being considerate of me. :-) > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 02:22:33PM +0200, Rene Kita wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 12:59:48PM +0200, Walter Alejandro Iglesias wrote: > > > Excuse my insistence, but I use vi-like bindings even in my shell, after > > > using mutt for decades I still insult RMS every time I mistakenly press > > > Esc to abort a command. :-) > > > > > > Could you give my patches *one* chance or at least let me know why they > > > are ignored, please? > > > > > > https://en.roquesor.com/Downloads/muttesckey.tar.gz > > > > While I can't say why your patches are ignored, I can say that they will > > not be accepted until Kevin changes his mind or we find a solution on > > the way towards a v2.3, see this[0] mail from two years ago. > > > > I had a very quick look at your proposed patches and my first impression > > was, that adding another special case for one key is not the correct > > approach for a patch going mainline. It's reasonable as a patch, but as > > a general solution I think is preferable to have an option to configure > > an abort key. Some people might prefer ^C to abort or some other key. > > I think you're confusing (shell) cancel with abort. Ctrl-C is also > there.
No, I'm not confusing it. Ctrl-C came just to my mind - maybe because I'm also a w3m user. I regularly use Ctrl-C Ctrl-G to cancel something in mutt. ;-) > Besides, giving the user an option to choose any key binding to > abort is difficult to accomplish for the way this special binding was > hardcoded in mutt. It's not *my approach*, is the way mutt has been > designed and coded. I didn't investigate it enough but I remember > reading (please correct me if I'm wrong) that it's ncurses what narrows > the choice with this particular action. Notice that it's not only mutt, > all ncurses applications are flexible in letting you choose key bindings > for everything except for abort. OK, I'm not really familiar with this topic. I just wanted to start a discussion and that was something that could be a reason to not pick a patch. I'm aware that such changes in old code are often more complicated than expected. > Personally I modify or customize my system only when it's absolutely > necessary, I build on what's already done, I don't try to reinvent the > wheel. Emacs and vi are the traditional editing modes, I chose vi > because as a BSD user I found it less problematic (the meta key doesn't > always work, see in muttrc(5) the "meta_key" option). So far mutt > forces you to use Ctrl-G (emacs-like binding), with my patches you also > have the vi-like binding version. As a fellow vi user I appreciate this and am going to test your patches, thanks. > If all ncurses-based applications let you do this (w3m comes also to > mind) I would be more than satisfied. As a contributor to w3m I'd be interested to here what you are missing. Feel free to tell me in private. > Think about how much work it would relieve the maintainer (one example > among many) to let SMTP, IMAP and POP client functionality to software > specifically designed, created and maintained for that purpose. This is > not *my approach* either, this is Unix philosophy. That ship might have sailed - but I totally agree. It might be worth thinking about a fork without all this, but if you remove SMTP, IMAP and POP, is it still a mutt?
