On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 18:16, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 20:44, Rob Walker wrote: > [snip] > > > > > it will severely increase the complexity of the display code, and it's > > > already nasty enough as it is without adding to it. > > > > Oh, ok. That's too bad. I hoped that the display code had separate > > areas for building the headers and then building the body, and then the > > two were put together. > > actually the code isn't as nasty as I thought it was... (just took a > look) > > > > > > There has to be a line drawn somewhere where it makes sense to say "no" > > > and I believe this feature to be over the line. > > > > Rats. What would it take to change your mind? ;-) > > someone sending in a patch that was beautifully implemented containing 0 > bugs and a sinch to maintain :-) > > ie, no work will ever have to be done by me ever in the future.
Now.... we all know _that_ won't happen, don't we? > I think the better solution would be to do one of the following: > > 1. expand "Normal Display" by 1 or 2 (max) more (hard coded) headers > that would make sense to display. > > or > > 2. We add another view "More Headers" that contained say 3 or 4 > additional headers that were hard coded. Now that I know you stand a good chance of maintaining the code, I can see better why you are in favor of hard coding these things. thanks, rob ps. would fifty bucks change your mind? :-) _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
