On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 09:28:51AM +0200, Volker Moell (dis)graced my inbox with:
> Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
> > Also, what is the _effective_ difference between sourcing a file, and
> > writing some kind of mutt-script to toggle a bunch of options? I don't
> > actually see one :)
>
> I think: way better clearness.
Well, you could write comments in your .muttrc that explain what the
sourced files do.
> See for example the following situation: Using different identities via
>
> macro index <F11> ":source ~/.mutt/private.rc\n"
> macro index <F12> ":source ~/.mutt/business.rc\n"
>
> (I don't like folder-hooks for that). Because I need another default
> send-hook in each of my identities, I have to put all my send-hooks into
> both of these .rc files (together with the "unhook send-hook" at the
> beginning of these .rc files). Some of these hooks are the same, and I
> didn't want to edit two files parallel, so I make another one
> general-hooks.rc which is sourced in the identity .rc's. And so on an so
> on...
>
> Sometimes I'm just wondering, if I have set or unset some feature. To
> have a single muttrc (IMHO) would be more comfortable to have an
> overview to all. When "debugging" your mutt configuration you have to
> go through a lot of files in the worst case - I don't really like this.
> When asking friends for help on some mutt questions, I would rather send
> them "my muttrc" instead of a huge tarball.
>
> In bash & friends. you have the possibility to source lot's of files,
> too. But do you split off your ~/.bashrc into a dozen or more pieces?
> I don't.
You don't _have_ to split up your .muttrc. It's just a feature, and it
has it's uses. Personally my .muttrc is only split into three pieces:
One for all the general options and such that are loaded with mutt, one
with my aliases, and one with some scripts that need to be run often (a
script for generating some headers, etc).
> When supporting scripting options (variables, "if"), (at least) I would
> write my muttrc a little bit better readable, and better debuggable.
I suppose so. You say potato, I say potahto :)
> > Mutt is perfect the way it is, IMNSHO :)
>
> I don't think it's perfect. It's just good. :-)
Well, it's supposed to suck less than the other mail clients, right? :)
> And I really don't want to start another fame war (I think there were a
> lot about it) - this should only be my very-IMHO-answer of your question.
Ack, flame wars not good. I don't want a flame war, this is a friendly
discussion :)
--
Rob 'Feztaa' Park
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Please take note:
PGP signature
