On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 03:24:14PM -0700, John Iverson wrote: > * On Thu, 16 May 2002, David Champion wrote: > > > I don't find that multiple quotation styles at the *same* > > quotation depth is a very common occurrence. Much more common > > is that I'm being mailed something that begins with a column of > > '#' marks -- a shell script posted in reply to someone's > > comments, say: > > > > > your script doesn't cover quite all cases. can you post a fix? > > > > OK, try this: > > #!/bin/sh > > # revision 2 > > # by request > > echo Hello, solar system! > > But in this case it's nice to have the "#" lines distinguished > from the ">" lines by being a different color, isn't it?
Actually, since it's just text in the quote, I like having them in the same color as the rest of the quote, which is how I have my quote_regexp configured. > Maybe the solution is to make it an option to go by _depth only_ > when coloring quotes. Or to be able to group some quote prefixes > together as being "equivalent" for coloring purposes. > > But it looks to me like Mutt doesn't really know the depth of a > quote as it works now. For example, if you have a message with > _only_ "second-level" or higher quote prefixes (say "> > "), Mutt > still seems to start with the first-level color. It starts with the first-level color because a second-level or higher quote is part of a first-level quote. Having the first quote character in one color lets you see the scope of the entire quote. It doesn't really matter to me which way mutt does it. Each method has a logic behind it. It's more a matter of preference and what you might be used to from other tools. Gary -- Gary Johnson | Agilent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Spokane, Washington, USA http://www.spocom.com/users/gjohnson/mutt/ |
