On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 05:43:31PM -0600, Dan Lipofsky wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 05:20:13PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote:
> > I think it would be annoying if Mutt moved my cursor around while I'm
> > trying to find a message, just because some new mail happened to arrive.
>
> Well, it could certainly be optional. Most of the time I am not in
> mutt, but doing other work. So I was wanting it to scroll the index
> for me so I could at just glance and see what the new mail was.
> Perhaps it should only do this when the index was already showing
> what was previously the last message, i.e. don't move it from
> message 1 to message 678.
I've got to agree with David on this, I don't want mutt moving my
cursor around automatically, ever. This sort of thing is what the
next-new keybinding is for. (Usually bound to <Tab> I think.) Mutt
already tells you when you have new mail, and even how many new
messages you have. If you want you can even macro "<Tab><Enter>" so
it automatically opens the message for you when it gets there, so it
only takes one key.
Besides providing very little benefit, making this automatic would add
an incredible amount of unnecessary complexity. For example, how far
is too far? One message away from the end? Five messages? "Make it
an option." Ok...but wait, there's more. What about the people who
aren't sorting primarily on date-received? For example, if someone
sorts on thread first and a new message shows up as #207 out of 652
because that is where the thread it goes with is, how is mutt supposed
to handle that one? It is the newest message, but nowhere near the
end, and probably nowhere near where your current cursor is. To jump
or not to jump? I could beat this example to death carrying it
through two or three more steps, each of which shows a new problem
which would need to be addressed, but hopefully you are getting the
idea.
Brian
