Chris, et al --
...and then Chris Green said...
% On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 05:13:10PM -0500, Larry P. Schrof wrote:
% >
% > generic binding seems to be broke. Am I doing something wrong?
% >
% > bind generic j previous-entry
% > bind generic k next-entry
% > bind index j noop
% > bind index k noop
% >
...
% If you add 'generic' bindings they very rarely (if ever) seem to work,
% it's something that has always been like this. I think maybe there
% should be a note in the manual about it to say that 'generic' is really
% only used to indicate that some built-in bindings apply everywhere and
% is not a binding type to be used in the muttrc file.
I don't think it's quite like that, although perhaps the manual could
be a bit clearer on the subject (always room for improvement, right?).
You can only generically bind a key if it's not otherwise bound; if
it is, then those bindings take precedence and must be changed with a
mode-specific (pager, index, etcetc) binding.
If j/k were not bound anywhere, then the generic binding would work just
fine. As we know, though, they are. The trick is to find an unused key
(not a small feat!).
%
% Or maybe it's possible to fix it?
One way might be to have mutt ship with no bindings and let you roll all
of your own ;-)
%
% --
% Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
% Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
% WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
:-D
--
David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
The "new millennium" starts at the beginning of 2001. There was no year 0.
Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh*
PGP signature
