Sup has been stable enough that I''ve pretty much abandoned mutt, except for one really useful feature it has: the ability to pipe multiple (tagged) messages to a single pipe. I use this every day to run cron job messages from nightly tests into a script that produces pretty summaries. I know, I could get really fancy and try to do this with procmail, but I need to cut and paste the summaries manually into a web page. I was thinking about how to add this feature to sup, and am not sure what it should look like to the user. There are two ways I can think of: One way is to tag multiple threads, compress them into a single thread using ''#'', open the thread, then use a new a "pipe entire thread" command. A simpler way for the user, but perhaps harder to implement, would be to tag the threads as before, and then use a new "pipe all tagged threads" command. Unfortunately, the ''|'' command at the thread-index level already means "modify search". Thoughts? Am I the only person in the world who uses this obscure mutt feature? :-)
Reformatted excerpts from Mark Alexander''s message of 2009-03-24:> Sup has been stable enough that I''ve pretty much abandoned mutt,Awesome to hear.> A simpler way for the user, but perhaps harder to implement, would be > to tag the threads as before, and then use a new "pipe all tagged > threads" command. Unfortunately, the ''|'' command at the thread-index > level already means "modify search".This is the way to go. No need to play around with the thread structure. We already individual message piping in thread-view-mode, so adding it to thread-index-mode shouldn''t be hard. The keyboard command is a bit unfortunate though. How many people actually use "|" to modify a search? -- William <wmorgan-sup at masanjin.net>
Excerpts from William Morgan''s message of Tue Mar 24 22:01:44 +0100 2009:> Reformatted excerpts from Mark Alexander''s message of 2009-03-24: > > Sup has been stable enough that I''ve pretty much abandoned mutt, > > Awesome to hear. > > > A simpler way for the user, but perhaps harder to implement, would be > > to tag the threads as before, and then use a new "pipe all tagged > > threads" command. Unfortunately, the ''|'' command at the thread-index > > level already means "modify search". > > This is the way to go. No need to play around with the thread structure. > We already individual message piping in thread-view-mode, so adding it > to thread-index-mode shouldn''t be hard. > > The keyboard command is a bit unfortunate though. > > How many people actually use "|" to modify a search?That''s fine to keep ''|'' for piping, but we need another key for modify a search. Maybe one should add a submap of keys doing advanced search things. -- Nicolas Pouillard
Excerpts from Nicolas Pouillard''s message of Wed Mar 25 04:58:48 -0400 2009:> Excerpts from William Morgan''s message of Tue Mar 24 22:01:44 +0100 2009: > > How many people actually use "|" to modify a search? > > That''s fine to keep ''|'' for piping, but we need another key for modify a > search.To be honest, I didn''t even know that keystroke existed, and I''ve been using sup every day as my primary client for probably a year+. I don''t see it documented anywhere now that I look. Is there a way to have found out about this (and other items) without reading each patch? -- linkswarm.com :: Collaborative Insolence vasudeva.linkswarm.com/gallery :: For The Faint of Heart
Excerpts from vasudeva''s message of Wed Mar 25 12:11:51 +0100 2009:> Excerpts from Nicolas Pouillard''s message of Wed Mar 25 04:58:48 -0400 2009: > > Excerpts from William Morgan''s message of Tue Mar 24 22:01:44 +0100 2009: > > > How many people actually use "|" to modify a search? > > > > That''s fine to keep ''|'' for piping, but we need another key for modify a > > search. > > To be honest, I didn''t even know that keystroke existed, and I''ve been > using sup every day as my primary client for probably a year+. I don''t > see it documented anywhere now that I look. Is there a way to have found > out about this (and other items) without reading each patch?After searching something ''\something<enter>'', if you type ''?'' you will see the description of ''|''. -- Nicolas Pouillard