Hello Dan, and thank you very much for your reports.
On Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 19:42:05 +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Upon encountering "postpone this message?", the user worries if "n"
> will 1. throw away the message, or 2. go ahead and send the message,
> or 3. let him continue to edit the message, etc.
However this prompt happens when the user was in the compose menu,
didn't <send-message>, but triggered the <exit> function (to "exit this
menu"). Logically, replying "n" can't do (2) nor (3).
Another possible question is what does ^G (abort)? Logically, ^G
aborts the whole <exit> procedure, and does (3), back to compose menu.
Granted, what's "logical" for the accustomed Mutt user, is perhaps
less logical for the casual or new user. However in past discussions
there were several voices (of hardcore Mutters) to not change this
prompt, considering it sufficiently clear ("current behavior seems both
satisfactory and obvious" has been said). There were also voices for a
change, but no proposal reached anywhere near any form of consensus.
Take especially a look at mutt-dev archives thread "phrasing
suggestion" in January 2005, beginning at msgid
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> Therefore that prompt's wording should be made clearer.
But can anyone propose a better wording? That would use the
"postpone" word consistently with everywhere else in Mutt and manual,
would make clearer what the 3 yes/no/abort replies do, would not
destabilize long-time users, and most of all, would stay short?
Bye! Alain.
--
Give your computer's unused idle processor cycles to a scientific goal:
The [EMAIL PROTECTED] project at <URL:http://folding.stanford.edu/>.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
