Robert Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (setq bbdb-display-layout-alist
> '((one-line t
> (phones mail-alias net notes))
> (multi-line (creation-date timestamp)
> (net phones addresses t))
> (full '(timestamp
>
> IM
On August 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> IMHO it is more easier to understand, maintain and think in
> display layouts, than in fields, but let's hear what you
> think about it?
Looks fine to me...
Cheers,
Waider.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / Yes, it /is/ very personal of me.
"disclaimer: As I hav
On , August 7 2001 09:45:48, Doug Alcorn wrote:
[...]
> '(bbdb-display-list
> '((net . t)
> (phone . t)
> (address . (multi-line full))
> (attribution . (one-line))
> (pilot-id. (full))
> (t
On August 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>'(bbdb-display-list
> '((net . all) ;; Show in all views
> (phone . all)
> (address . multi-line);; show in mult-line and full views
> (attribution . one-line-only) ;; Only show in one-l
Thomas E Deweese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are minor functionality changes, that may or may not warrent
> a name change, but 'better naming' _is_ just changing names for the
> sake of changing names.
it depends on why it is better...
the question is whom we want to inconvenience more
Thomas E Deweese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>'(bbdb-display-list
> '((net . all) ;; Show in all views
> (phone . all)
> (address . multi-line);; show in mult-line and full views
> (attribution . one-line-only) ;; Only show
On Tuesday, August 7 2001 08:19:53, Thomas E Deweese wrote:
[...]
> There are minor functionality changes, that may or may not warrent
> a name change, but 'better naming' _is_ just changing names for the
> sake of changing names.
Well, we could argue on this for quite some while.
IMHO "for t
> "RF" == Robert Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RF> On Monday, August 6 2001 10:15:30, Colin Rafferty wrote: [...]
>> I hate changing names just for the sake of changing names.
RF> Well me too, but they are not just changed for the sake of
RF> changing names, but also for minor functionali
On Monday, August 6 2001 10:15:30, Colin Rafferty wrote:
[...]
> I hate changing names just for the sake of changing names.
Well me too, but they are not just changed for the sake of
changing names, but also for minor functionality changes and
better naming.
> > Your are right, bbdb-one-line-d
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Colin Rafferty spake:
> Robert Fenk wrote:
>> bbdb-one-line-display-fields (bbdb-elided-display-fields)
>> list of fields which should be displayed in one-line display
>
> This is the exact opposite of the -elided- version, and a bad choice.
> If I add a new field interac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Robert Fenk wrote on Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:58:38 +0200:
Robert> bbdb-default-display-mode (bbdb-elided-display)
Robert> either one-line, multi-line or 'full
Robert> bbdb-pop-up-default-display-mode (bbdb-pop-up-elided-display)
Robert> either one-l
On August 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> I hate changing names just for the sake of changing names.
Yup, agreed, but it appears that the number of people who think of the
word 'elided' when trying to figure out optional field display is
getting smaller and smaller - I must confess to being unawa
On Monday, August 6 2001 14:44:55, Alex Schroeder wrote:
> Robert Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > bbdb-default-display-mode (bbdb-elided-display)
> > either one-line, multi-line or 'full
> > bbdb-pop-up-default-display-mode (bbdb-pop-up-elided-display)
> > either one-line, multi-li
Robert Fenk wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5 2001 02:30:59, Ronan Waide wrote:
>> What I think needs to be done is for bbdb-elided-display
>> to go away (or be replaced with some aliasing and a bunch
>> of warnings to say it /will/ go away), and be replaced
>> with a combination of your code and the
Robert Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> bbdb-default-display-mode (bbdb-elided-display)
> either one-line, multi-line or 'full
> bbdb-pop-up-default-display-mode (bbdb-pop-up-elided-display)
> either one-line, multi-line or 'full
I don't think the names should end in "mode" if we a
On Sunday, August 5 2001 02:30:59, Ronan Waide wrote:
> I don't know how much duplication of effort - if any - is
> involved in having both systems present.
A few lines. Apparently my commit has broken the old
behavior :/ but I have a fix already handy.
> What I think needs to be done is for
On August 4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> It is not exactly the same feature AFAIS, see the other mail
> I sent.
>
> bbdb-elided-display affects the default display mode:
> whether it is one line or a listing. I would propose to
> remove the "omitting" of fields from bbdb-elided-display,
> but that
On Friday, August 3 2001 21:41:12, Ronan Waide wrote:
> On August 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > >> How is this different from `bbdb-elided-display'?
> >
> > DG> I want a full listing, in multiple lines, minus a couple fields.
> > DG> Robert's patch does this. bbdb-elided-display does not.
> >
On Friday, August 3 2001 10:55:11, Thomas E Deweese wrote:
[...]
> Yes, it does...
But not as I thought it should be.
I want elided display by default and when I switch to full
display I do not want to see some fields.
Neither way of setting bbdb-elided-display provides this.
whne setting it
On Fri, 03 Aug 2001, David S. Goldberg gibbered:
> DG> I want a full listing, in multiple lines, minus a couple fields.
> DG> Robert's patch does this. bbdb-elided-display does not.
>
>> Yes, it does...
>
> Thanks! Is that new in the 2.3* versions? I don't recall that being
> possible p
DG> I want a full listing, in multiple lines, minus a couple fields.
DG> Robert's patch does this. bbdb-elided-display does not.
> Yes, it does...
[...]
Thanks! Is that new in the 2.3* versions? I don't recall that being
possible previously. The only question then would be is there an
On August 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> >> How is this different from `bbdb-elided-display'?
>
> DG> I want a full listing, in multiple lines, minus a couple fields.
> DG> Robert's patch does this. bbdb-elided-display does not.
>
> Yes, it does...
Robert, given that this is the case, can
> "DG" == David S Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DG> I want a full listing, in multiple lines, minus a couple fields.
DG> Robert's patch does this. bbdb-elided-display does not.
>> Yes, it does...
DG> [...]
DG> Thanks! Is that new in the 2.3* versions?
I don't think so, but
On , July 31 2001 12:43:18, Doug Alcorn wrote:
> Robert Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > - omitting fields of records by listing them in the
> > variable `bbdb-display-omit-fields', e.g. pilot-id!
>
> Excellent! Thanks for jumping on this so fast!
The code was there for about 2 month,
Robert Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - omitting fields of records by listing them in the
> variable `bbdb-display-omit-fields', e.g. pilot-id!
Excellent! Thanks for jumping on this so fast!
One thing I noticed: there doesn't seem to be a good way to toggle
between omiting the omitted fi
25 matches
Mail list logo
