Hi Vsevolod,
On 2022-08-01 17:32+0300, Vsevolod Volkov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 04:08:27PM +0200, ilf wrote:
> i> IMHO both "> > foo" and ">> foo" are bad, it should be ">> foo".
>
> i> I achieve this with a Vim script:
> i>
Yes, sorry, ""> > foo" and ">>foo" are bad, it should be ">> foo""
Kurt Hackenberg:
What? The last two are the same.
--
ilf
If you upload your address book to "the cloud", I don't want to be in it.
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 04:08:27PM +0200, ilf wrote:
>IMHO both "> > foo" and ">> foo" are bad, it should be ">> foo".
What? The last two are the same.
Thanks. Personally, I like vanilla Mutt without custom patches.
Maybe you/some wants to submit a PR from this patch for the issue at
hand?
This still leaves the debate if the patch/PR should be merged, what the
options are and what a good default should be.
Vsevolod Volkov:
Try this
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 04:08:27PM +0200, ilf wrote:
i> IMHO both "> > foo" and ">> foo" are bad, it should be ">> foo".
i> I achieve this with a Vim script:
i> https://vim.fandom.com/wiki/Correct_format-flowed_email_function
Try this patch:
IMHO both "> > foo" and ">> foo" are bad, it should be ">> foo".
I achieve this with a Vim script:
https://vim.fandom.com/wiki/Correct_format-flowed_email_function
Kurt Hackenberg:
If you propose that software add a space after the rightmost '>', but
not after others, I think it's thirty
