Okay, I'll buy it. Patch version 5 in a while...
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
Okay, I'll buy it. Patch version 5 in a while...
pgpc7jlWB9atp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:49:46 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> > > + ((= start-of-message (point))
> > > + ;; The cursor is at the start of the current message - move to
> > > + ;; the previous open message.
> > > + (notmuch-show-previous-open-message))
> >
> > This will jump to
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 15:22:45 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> I thought about this a bit more (mostly because I don't want to write
> tests for one behaviour and then have to change them - writing tests for
> emacs with the current test suite is painful).
>
> If you want to go back a page you can
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:04:02 -0500, Aaron Ecay wrote:
> The way I look at it, notmuch has two sets of movement keys ? n/p and
> SPC/DEL. The former moves by messages, and the latter by screenfuls
> (with the added complication that the screenful movement commands also
> stop at intervening
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:49:46 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
+ ((= start-of-message (point))
+ ;; The cursor is at the start of the current message - move to
+ ;; the previous open message.
+ (notmuch-show-previous-open-message))
This will jump to the
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 15:22:45 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
I thought about this a bit more (mostly because I don't want to write
tests for one behaviour and then have to change them - writing tests for
emacs with the current test suite is painful).
If you want to go back a page
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:04:02 -0500, Aaron Ecay aarone...@gmail.com wrote:
The way I look at it, notmuch has two sets of movement keys – n/p and
SPC/DEL. The former moves by messages, and the latter by screenfuls
(with the added complication that the screenful movement commands also
stop at
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:24:11 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:00:21 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> > Understood. For me this fell inside the 'trivial other change' boundary.
>
> Fwiw, I don't remember there ever being such a distinction. I think
> we've always
Hi David.
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:46:13 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:01:33 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin gmail.com> wrote:
> > * Revert changes to notmuch-show-advance-and-archive.
>
> Why? (I mean, because the change is poor or just that it's unrelated or
> because I didn't
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:00:21 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> Understood. For me this fell inside the 'trivial other change' boundary.
Fwiw, I don't remember there ever being such a distinction. I think
we've always insisted that unrelated changes should be excluded. As a
general rule, I think
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 23:11:27 -0500, Aaron Ecay wrote:
> > > + ((> (let ((visible-bottom (notmuch-show-message-bottom)))
> > > + (while (invisible-p visible-bottom)
> > > +(setq visible-bottom (max (point-min)
> > > + (1- (previous-single-char-property-change
>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:01:33 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote:
> * Revert changes to notmuch-show-advance-and-archive.
Why? (I mean, because the change is poor or just that it's unrelated or
because I didn't mention it)
> * Can we split this in two patches? One for rewind and another for
>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:01:33 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
dmitry.kuroch...@gmail.com wrote:
* Revert changes to notmuch-show-advance-and-archive.
Why? (I mean, because the change is poor or just that it's unrelated or
because I didn't mention it)
* Can we split this in two patches? One for rewind
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:06:35 -0500, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote:
Awesome. This looks significantly cleaner. I think this is worth
pushing for the comment you added to notmuch-show-advance alone.
Thanks.
This definitely changes the behavior of rewind, but other than one
case I
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 23:11:27 -0500, Aaron Ecay aarone...@gmail.com wrote:
+ (( (let ((visible-bottom (notmuch-show-message-bottom)))
+ (while (invisible-p visible-bottom)
+(setq visible-bottom (max (point-min)
+ (1-
Hi David.
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:46:13 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:01:33 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
dmitry.kuroch...@gmail.com wrote:
* Revert changes to notmuch-show-advance-and-archive.
Why? (I mean, because the change is poor or just that it's
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:00:21 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
Understood. For me this fell inside the 'trivial other change' boundary.
Fwiw, I don't remember there ever being such a distinction. I think
we've always insisted that unrelated changes should be excluded. As a
general
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:24:11 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:00:21 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
Understood. For me this fell inside the 'trivial other change' boundary.
Fwiw, I don't remember there ever being such a
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:06:35 -0500, Austin Clements wrote:
> Awesome. This looks significantly cleaner. I think this is worth
> pushing for the comment you added to notmuch-show-advance alone.
+1
> Quoth David Edmondson on Dec 23 at 6:41 pm:
> > The advance/rewind functions had become
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:06:35 -0500, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote:
Awesome. This looks significantly cleaner. I think this is worth
pushing for the comment you added to notmuch-show-advance alone.
+1
Quoth David Edmondson on Dec 23 at 6:41 pm:
The advance/rewind functions had
Awesome. This looks significantly cleaner. I think this is worth
pushing for the comment you added to notmuch-show-advance alone.
This definitely changes the behavior of rewind, but other than one
case I point out below, I think what you have now is much closer to an
inverse of advance. It
Awesome. This looks significantly cleaner. I think this is worth
pushing for the comment you added to notmuch-show-advance alone.
This definitely changes the behavior of rewind, but other than one
case I point out below, I think what you have now is much closer to an
inverse of advance. It
Hi David.
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:41:52 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> The advance/rewind functions had become complex, which made it hard to
> determine how they are expected to behave. Re-implement them simply in
> order to poll user-experience and expectation.
> ---
>
> Switched back to
The advance/rewind functions had become complex, which made it hard to
determine how they are expected to behave. Re-implement them simply in
order to poll user-experience and expectation.
---
Switched back to using `previous-single-char-property-change' now that
Aaron explained it. Fix a bug
Hi David.
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:41:52 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
The advance/rewind functions had become complex, which made it hard to
determine how they are expected to behave. Re-implement them simply in
order to poll user-experience and expectation.
---
Switched back
26 matches
Mail list logo
