* On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Im Eunjea wrote:

> * John Iverson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-04-25 13:40]:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > 
> > > I'm using this:
> > > 
> > > macro index "\Cx" \
> > > "<tag-pattern>~N<enter><tag-prefix><toggle-new><tag-prefix><clear-flag>*" \
> > > "Mark all boring new msgs"
> > 
> > This malfunctions if there are no N(ew) messages by incorrectly
> > setting N on the highlighted message.  Note that you therefore
> > can't run it twice in a row (unless you happen to get a new
> > message in the interval).  It will also set N on any non-N(ew)
> > tagged messages.  You should replace <toggle-new> with
> > <clear-flag>N.
> 
> why run twice? and I can see there N(ew) flag or not. (and you?) ;)

You would not normally run it twice.  I'm just using that to show
that it fails when there are no New mails.  The intention of the
macro is to clear N flags (turn them off), not to toggle them.

Also, if you have any tagged non-New messages when you run your
macro, their N flags get turned back on.  I'm sure it works with
the way you use it -- I'm just suggesting how to make it more
robust.

> > I like Sven's version because it leaves the messages tagged so
> > you can see which messages were affected, but no further action
> > is required.  The tags are cleared when you change mailboxes.
> > 
> 
> that's why I using <toggle-new>. I don't like leave tags there.

I was talking about tagged messages, not the New (N) flag.  If
you just replace <toggle-new> with <clear-flag>N in your macro,
it should work the same as before, without failing in the cases I
mentioned.  The <tag-prefix><clear-flag>* at the end will still
clear the tags, right?

-- 
John

Reply via email to