In this particular case the implementation is probably pretty
easy (still SMOP, though), just what exactly should be done is
the hard part, to get nice, clean, useable and maintainable
solution.
Thanks for the clarification. That's of course right.
JV
Tomi
JV
Tomi Ollila writes:
On Wed, May 13 2020, Jörg Volbers wrote:
> OK, seems there is something I do not understand. What do you mean
> with "spec in mind"?
In this particular case the implementation is probably pretty easy
(still SMOP, though), just what exactly should be done is the hard
part, to get nice, clean, use
OK, seems there is something I do not understand. What do you mean
with "spec in mind"?
JV
Tomi Ollila writes:
On Tue, May 12 2020, Jörg Volbers wrote:
My gut reaction is that doing more formatting in notmuch reply
is probably a mistake; it's hard enough to get two users to
agree on thes
On Tue, May 12 2020, Jörg Volbers wrote:
>> My gut reaction is that doing more formatting in notmuch reply
>> is probably a mistake; it's hard enough to get two users to
>> agree on these kind of customizations, never mind two different
>> MUAs. Probably what we need to do is make sure the stru
My gut reaction is that doing more formatting in notmuch reply
is probably a mistake; it's hard enough to get two users to
agree on these kind of customizations, never mind two different
MUAs. Probably what we need to do is make sure the structured
(json/s-expr) output has enough information fo
Emmanuel Beffara writes:
>
> I use `notmuch reply` with the default format indirectly, because I use
> bower an it delegates the task of preparing replies to this command. I
> feel it would make sense to define new settings to handle all this, but
> maybe there are good reasons not to?
>
My gut
Hello,
Unless I missed something, there is essentially no way to control how
`notmuch reply` formats its template message. The standard behaviour is
adequate except for a few details:
- The attribution line uses a default format which is informative but
overly verbose for my taste. It would be