-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, October 12 at 08:00 PM, quoth David Champion:
>>> The patch certainly provides better functionality than hooks,
>>> macros, and scripts do, given the usual constraints.
>>
>> I don't see what that missing functionality might be. Maybe I'm
>> missing something.
>
> I didn't say "missing", I said "better". I haven't said there's
> anything fundamentally wrong with your approach; it's just not as -- as
> you said -- convenient.
>
> But why is this an argument?
I guess I don't view convenience as "better functionality", but rather
equal functionality. If I can bend mutt to do exactly the same thing
two different ways, it's equal functionality, even if one requires
more keystrokes. "Better" functionality implies that one performs
faster/more-thoroughly/more-accurately/etc. than the other. But you're
right, at this point, it doesn't matter: the OP has a multitude of
ways of doing it. All that remains is to quibble about whether mutt's
source should include code for functions that can be performed via
hooks.
~Kyle
- --
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that
we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public.
-- Theodore Roosevelt, 1912
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Thank you for using encryption!
iD8DBQFHEEsrBkIOoMqOI14RApu7AJ9mhtGAXbGRGloWxOHFhjM9+VzjLwCeKzOw
HHNl7/+TONTk7HtdmHwOVts=
=wgVc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
