Hi Kevin, On 2026-02-19T20:49:59+0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 08:30:56PM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > I'm not dead set against it, but I've never thought the macros or naming > > were confusing. > > > > Making the implementation of each the same seems like a good idea, but I > > think it would be a shame to get ride of the skip_xxx() and is_xxx() > > macros. To me they make the code more readable, not less. > > I will add that veering into needing to implement our own strchrnul() and > using not-yet standardized C constructs like '?:' feel like it's going a bit > too far though, for a minor cleanup. Mutt moves slowly, and still is meant > to work on (somewhat) older systems.
Sure; I was just floating ideas. We can incorporate them slowly, to make sure users can still use mutt(1). Have a lovely day! Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
