On Jan 15, 2008 11:05 PM, Angel Olivera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue 15.Jan.08 09:38, Francis Moreau wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 2008 6:28 PM, Kyle Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Monday, January 14 at 05:59 PM, quoth Francis Moreau:
> >>> It seems that Trash is not really welcome in Mutt.
> >>
> >> By what metric? The fact that support for it isn't built-in (added via
> >> two simple hooks or via the trash patch linked on the mutt webpage:
> >> http://cedricduval.free.fr/mutt/patches/#trash) or are you seeing some
> >> sort of wider hostility to the existence of folders with that name?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > And "poor man's trash" comment doesn't sound that having a trash is a
> > clever idea. ISTR to see this comment on mutt website too.
>
> You're probably just not familiar with the term. In this world, "poor
And you're probably right since my english doesn't really rock ;)
> man's" something means that this something is done in a very low quality
> way, as if it were an imitation of an original idea for which a full
> implementation would take more effort to achieve.
however if mutt considers to implement a very low quality trash, what does
that mean ?
1/ Mutt developpers are lazy ;)
2/ There are so few people needing a trash by default that it
really doesn't worth to implement a trash
3/ Mutt folks consider that having a trash is a bad idea and
they don't want to push people in using it.
My choice is obviously not 1/. I can't believe in the second point so I
can only see 3/ therefore my initial question.
--
Francis
