On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 02:50:44PM -0500, David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > % subject. The question mark denotes a missing reference. So if a > > This I also understand -- but it seems to be too over-the-top. I've been > known to clear out everything except a final useful message deep in a > thread -- and so I have a single message with a zillion question marks in > front of it. Ick, even though I can see that it has missing references; > it's not even part of a thread any more, though!
This is what $hide_missing is for. Set it. But for getting rid of long rows of question marks within a thread, I'm working on code that will make hide_missing do that too. > I created a little test mailbox which can be found at > > http://mutt.justpickone.org/mutt-build-cocktail/box-threads > > for identical playing, and it seems to expose at least one problem as > well as raise some questions. > > I've taken the liberty of cutting off the end of the sample displays > so that I don't overflow the line length, but when I open this little > mailbox with 1.3.23 I get the expected > > -> 1 ns- Nov 30 Thomas Roessler >#002< [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i i > 3 - Dec 07 Thorsten Haude >#007< Re: A couple of probably > 10 r - Dec 08 Nicolas Rachins >#004< Re: scripting/batchmode > > 'cuz I have 'exec collapse-all' at the bottom of my muttrc file. When I > open this with 1.3.24, however, I instead see > > -> 1 ns- Nov 30 Thomas Roessler >#002< [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i i > 3 - Dec 07 Thorsten Haude ( 26) ?->Re: A couple of probab > 4 r - Dec 07 Thomas Hurst ( 29) |-?->Re: A couple of prob > 5 - Dec 08 Thomas Hurst ( 18) | |-?-?-?-> > 6 - Dec 08 Thomas Hurst ( 29) | | `-?-?-?-> > 7 r -@ Dec 08 Thomas Hurst ( 16) | `-?-> > 8 sF Dec 08 To Mutt Users' ( 54) | `-> > 9 s-@ Dec 08 Prahlad Vaidyan ( 42) `->Re: A couple of probab > 10 r - Dec 08 Nicolas Rachins >#004< Re: scripting/batchmode > > and wonder why the second thread isn't collapsed and if it has something > to do with the missing reference at the top of the thread. If I open > that thread in 1.3.23 I see I'll look into the thread-collapsing thing. > 1 ns- Nov 30 Thomas Roessler >#002< [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i i > -> 3 - Dec 07 Thorsten Haude ( 26) Re: A couple of probably > 4 r - Dec 07 Thomas Hurst ( 29) |*> > 5 - Dec 08 Thomas Hurst ( 18) | |-> > 6 - Dec 08 Thomas Hurst ( 29) | |-> > 7 r -@ Dec 08 Thomas Hurst ( 16) | `-> > 8 sF Dec 08 To Mutt Users' ( 54) | `-> > 9 s-@ Dec 08 Prahlad Vaidyan ( 42) `*> > 10 r - Dec 08 Nicolas Rachins >#004< Re: scripting/batchmode > > and we see that, while a couple of items were attached by virtue of > subject (though Prahlad's message, interestingly enough, did not appear > to have any missing refs according to 1.3.24 above), the threading looks > manageable and appears in the same order. Prahlad's message does have a missing parent in the new display: it's the missing parent that's at the top of the thread. [...] > I'd prefer to have $hide_missing hide *all* of the missing reference > indicators and give me a display like in 1.3.23 -- all of the clips above > are with $hide_missing set! Hiding all the missing messages will make the thread display less comprehensible, since things that aren't siblings will be grouped together in a way that looks like they're siblings, but they won't be sorted in the right order, the next-subthread command et al. will work in a strange way, etc. I think I know how to achieve a happy middle ground. Patch coming, hopefully later today. -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"
