* On Thu, 16 May 2002, David T-G wrote:
> You should probably continue to quoted5 or quoted6 to fill out
> your test, because ...
[ ... ]
> ... this appears to be looping except for the rematch on the
> last '>' line.
Yes, Mutt loops through the colors again if you go past the
defined quote levels. That's what I wanted.
> While they may be, it doesn't really make sense for there to be
> two first-level quotes with different delimiters, even if you
> might split them up for vparsing. A more practical example
> might be one reply to two originals, perhaps like
>
> Quoting John:
> % >he said this
> % he did??
> % >and then that
> % no!
>
> Quoting Bill:
> % # that was messier
> % # and I wouldn't want it
> % yeah, you said it
>
> or so. Now you would see the outer quotes (%) in color 1 and
> you might expect to see the inner quotes (> and #) both in
> color 2 but mutt would (correctly, IMHO) identify them as
> separate (after all, one is John and the other Bill) and color
> them as 2 and 3, respectively.
Right.
> % back to the first leading quote prefix ("> " above), resets
> it % again. (Vim, for example, seems to display this
> correctly, % although it uses different quote prefixes by
> default.)
>
> I'm interested in your definition of "correct", perhaps
> clarified through detailed description of an example. My
> definition of "correct" matches mutt's apparent performance.
Correct = How I thought it should work at the time ;-)
My original thinking was that the color should depend on only the
"level" of the quote, and when I saw that vim did it this way, it
reinforced my thinking that maybe Mutt was doing something wrong
or I had something configured wrong. But it's looking like Mutt
is right and now I think I prefer the way Mutt handles it.
--
John
