David Champion:
Maybe the original poster (I forgot who...) would be OK with
"unbind * *" and "unmacro * *".
and, finalizing this thread, should this not be the default content of the
default fallback etc/Muttrc?
--
clemens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Champion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe the original poster (I forgot who...) would be OK with
"unbind * *" and "unmacro * *".
But there is no "unbind" nor "unmacro" command...
--
David DeSimone | "The doctrine of human equality reposes on this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | that there is
On 2000.05.26, in [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"David DeSimone" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Champion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe the original poster (I forgot who...) would be OK with
"unbind * *" and "unmacro * *".
But there is no "unbind" nor "unmacro" command...
I know.
Mikko Hänninen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's good as an option, but then the problem would be that you can't
have an independent stand-alone binary that works even with no
resource files...
Is this really one of the design goals of Mutt? I don't see a problem
with getting people used to
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 04:00:26AM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
That's good as an option, but then the problem would be that you can't
have an independent stand-alone binary that works even with no resource
files... It would be useless (without a .muttrc), you couldn't even add
your own
Gero Treuner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Fri, 26 May 2000:
What about making the help screen a menu ...
? must be hardcoded, or a comparable solution.
No, you can bind that to ? if you can use the enter-command function.
"help" is a bindable function just like any other...
But this discussion
On 2000.05.25, in [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"David DeSimone" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mikko Hänninen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's good as an option, but then the problem would be that you can't
have an independent stand-alone binary that works even with no
resource files...
Is
David DeSimone:
Mikko Hänninen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's good as an option, but then the problem would be that you can't
have an independent stand-alone binary that works even with no
resource files...
Is this really one of the design goals of Mutt? I don't see a problem
as
David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One way might be to have mutt ship with no bindings and let you roll
all of your own ;-)
This tongue-in-cheek comment is actually not a bad idea: Do not
hard-code any of the keybindings in the Mutt source, but instead set the
defaults in the system Muttrc.
David DeSimone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wed, 24 May 2000:
This tongue-in-cheek comment is actually not a bad idea: Do not
hard-code any of the keybindings in the Mutt source, but instead set the
defaults in the system Muttrc. This way, it is possible for a site to
implement their
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 05:13:10PM -0500, Larry P. Schrof wrote:
Mutt version:
Mutt 1.0.1i (2000-01-18)
Is this a bug?
==
generic binding seems to be broke. Am I doing something wrong?
bind generic j previous-entry
bind generic k next-entry
bind index j noop
bind
Chris, et al --
...and then Chris Green said...
% On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 05:13:10PM -0500, Larry P. Schrof wrote:
%
% generic binding seems to be broke. Am I doing something wrong?
%
% bind generic j previous-entry
% bind generic k next-entry
% bind index j noop
% bind index k noop
%
Mutt version:
Mutt 1.0.1i (2000-01-18)
Is this a bug?
==
generic binding seems to be broke. Am I doing something wrong?
bind generic j previous-entry
bind generic k next-entry
bind index j noop
bind index k noop
When I hit 'k' or 'j' in the index, it gives me a "Key is not
Larry P. Schrof:
When I hit 'k' or 'j' in the index, it gives me a "Key is not bound."
error. Yet, when I go to the binding listing screen (by hitting '?'),
'j' and 'k' show up in the generic bindings section as bound to the
functions I assigned.
think about it over a nice cup of hot
14 matches
Mail list logo
