On 22Oct2020 13:08, Cameron Simpson <c...@cskk.id.au> wrote: >On 29Jul2020 09:13, Cameron Simpson <c...@cskk.id.au> wrote: >>On 28Jul2020 13:27, Kevin J. McCarthy <ke...@8t8.us> wrote: >>>I don't know if this helps, but have you tried a format pipe *just* in >>>one of the index-format-hook with %f and using the script to extract >>>the name part of the full address? >>> >>> set index_format="%D %@from_part@ %S %?M?(%M) ?%?H?[%H] ?%s%* %?y? y? >>> %4c" >>> index-format-hook from_part '%f polyname' "~/bin/extractname '%f'|" >>> index-format-hook from_part ~A '%-15.15F' >> >>I have not.. Might be expensive. I'll see how that goes. Thanks! > >Just FYI, I've done this instead: > > https://bitbucket.org/cameron_simpson/css/commits/9bdab9c16452223a58508939d43b04c23820bdb2
Also, I've just reread Kevin's suggestion above more carefully. And tried it. It isn't all that bad, since it only runs the script for messages from the target group. However, I think it uncovers a performance issue with mutt's index rendering. I noticed that when there were several candidate addresses the scrolling slowed down (scrolling driven by my keyboard autorepeat). It is as though when the index is scrolling, every displayed line is reconsidered instead of just the lines coming into view (or those not previously rendered). It might benefit from a cache of rendered index lines, niche though this case is, if index-format-hook with a shell escape becomes widely used. I suppose such a cache could be conditional on shelling out to fulfil the format... Just my impressions, Cameron Simpson <c...@cskk.id.au>
