On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 08:16:08PM -0500, David T-G
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ken --
>
> ...and then Ken Weingold said...
> %
> % The more I run 1.3.24, the more I am appreciating the multiple '?'s in
> ...
> % Instead of something like -?-?-?-?- , maybe things like -?4?-> or the
> % like, replacing all the '?'s with a number representing them? Seems
> % like a happy medium.
>
> That sounds pretty cool. Daniel is working on the code and might be able
> to incorporate this pretty easily; drop him a note (in case he doesn't
> get to his list mail before finishing his updates).
I've thought about doing this. I may well do so, but it's nontrivial to
add and I'm about to be out of the reach of the internet (mostly, at
least) until January. I'll bring my laptop along on my travels, though,
so perhaps I'll get some coding done along the way. With the patch I
just sent to mutt-dev and mutt-users it's pretty much all or nothing,
though I with hide_missing set mutt still does show the necessary amount
of information to make it clear why it's sorting the way it does. Tell
me what you think! (I'll still be in email range until sometime
Friday.) Anyway, if you don't mind the question marks in principle, now
having hide_missing unset unless you're dealing with a really wide
sparse thread, and then toggling it, is probably a good way to go (and
definitely what I plan to do.)
-Daniel
--
Daniel E. Eisenbud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"We should go forth on the shortest walk perchance, in the spirit of
undying adventure, never to return,--prepared to send back our embalmed
hearts only as relics to our desolate kingdoms."
--Henry David Thoreau, "Walking"
