On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 02:32:19PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 23:21:27 -0800, Dairy Wall Limey wrote:
> > hrmm this makes sense... setting this does change the number of '?'s...
> > putting:
> > set hide_missing
> >
> > gives one question mark,
>
> Here, I get several question marks ($hide_missing set). :(
$hide_missing only hides the leading message if they can sensibly be
hidden.
> > is there a way to hide the question marks entirely as in older versions
> > of mutt?
>
> I'd like this too.
Well, this would lead to a certain amount of confusion, since the thread
navigation commands know now that certain messages aren't really
siblings, for instance. But hiding all the question marks would lose
this visual information, so those commands would appear to fail
randomly. However, this would be reasonably easy to do codewise. A
better solution, though, would be to show only the question marks
necessary to disambiguate things. This is possible but will take a
little bit of work. I'll look into it.
> They are a problem in very long threads.
I had a patch that added a $narrow_tree variable years ago, which made
the thread tree take up only half as much screen real estate. Maybe
it's time to resurrect this too.
-Daniel
--
Daniel E. Eisenbud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"We should go forth on the shortest walk perchance, in the spirit of
undying adventure, never to return,--prepared to send back our embalmed
hearts only as relics to our desolate kingdoms."
--Henry David Thoreau, "Walking"
