On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 23:11:27 -0500, Aaron Ecay <aaronecay at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > + ((> (let ((visible-bottom (notmuch-show-message-bottom)))
> > > + (while (invisible-p visible-bottom)
> > > + (setq visible-bottom (max (point-min)
> > > + (1- (previous-single-char-property-change
> > > + visible-bottom 'invisible)))))
> > > + visible-bottom) (window-end))
>
> Can this (let...) be lifted out of the (cond...)? IMO it is very
> confusing to be doing non-trivial computation in the test portion of a
> cond form.
It ends up a long way from where it's used, diluting the value of the
comment. I do like the current layout, but what if it was (something
like):
((let ((visible-bottom (1- (notmuch-show-message-bottom))))
(while (invisible-p visible-bottom)
(setq visible-bottom (max (point-min)
(1- (previous-single-char-property-change
visible-bottom 'invisible)))))
(> visible-bottom (window-end)))
;; The end of this message is not visible - scroll to show more of
;; it.
(scroll-up)
nil)
That would seem more palatable, perhaps.
> Agreed. I would like to see this case move back one screenful of text or
> to the previous beginning-of-message, whichever is shorter.
See previous comment - I agreed that it's not symmetric - just wonder
which is more useful behaviour.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20111226/f773610f/attachment.pgp>
