On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:23:40 +0100, "Sebastian Spaeth" <Sebastian at 
SSpaeth.de> wrote:
> Well, it is fatal in the sense that it makes that function useless. But
> it's not as bad as it is currently unused.

Right. I didn't want to push something out with a known-broken function.

I would have rather the patch just remove the function in that case,
(but the fact that someone noticed the broken function meant that
someone actually *was* using it and removing it wouldn't be nice

> I still think it's worth taking this patch and fixing it then.

Done and pushed out now.

> - split into a "notmuch-show-next-message"
>   and a notmuch-show-show-next-message (what a naming!) function. 
>   One would merely skip to the next and one actually show and mark
>   unread.

That's the approach I took, with naming of
notmuch-show-next-message-without-marking-read. And yes, the naming we
have for our emacs functions is awful. I really dislike "notmuch-show"
as a prefix because it puts a verb in the prefix, (where I'd instead
like to just have a verb for the actual functionality of the function).

But we have to have at least *something* to separate the search-results
and message-viewing modes, (since we have commands like "archive" in
both of them). The lack of nice scoping here is really awkward.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available

Reply via email to