steffen> (Aaah, colours again… (Is that already degeneration??))
Since you are asking: I usually detest coloring (when it's at the "word"
level, as in ls output or with syntax coloring) but find it actually
helpful as used in s-nail at the structure level (just marking the mail
header), in particular since I have to deal with forwarded mails and
embedded headers very often.
What I (and a colleague of mine) never understood: what's the point of
the s-nail line-editor?
Different users have different use cases, and I may well be missing
the scenario where the line-editor makes a major difference, worth
the efforts you obviously spend on it. Perhaps you could shed
some light on your motivation for adding this feature?
Did it start out at a sane level (editing the "ask"/"askcc"/... header
inputs, as e.g. NetBSD mail(1) allows, too), and did then escalate
into the msg body input, because it was just a simple change (and even
option-controlled)? I could fully understand that.
Thanks for the editing feature, but as far as I'm concerned, please
don't lose any sleep on it:
(1) At the command level, most commands are just 1 or 2 characters.
cmd-line-editing or cmd-history are of no use for me here.
(2) At the message writing level, I can either compose a short new
mail using ^H/^W/^U good enough or, if not (mostly the case :-),
I quickly use "~v" to drop into a Real Editor.
"Builtin Line-Editing" doesn't cut it for me, since it's *single*
line-editing, and what I need to re-edit most is always multi-line:
trimming quotes down, interleaving my reply, reformatting paragraphs.
I'm afraid the s-nail builtin line-editor may entice users to send
more senseless full-quotes. Be those coloured or not, I would call
that "degeneration" :-)
Martin Neitzel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________________________
[email protected]
