To: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>, notmuch <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Subject: Re: pull request
In-Reply-To: <87vdbkfwgr.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
References: <87sk722sfq.fsf@ut.hh.sledj.net> <87eiibq22s.fsf@ut.hh.sledj.net>
	<87ljcj2u4z.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<8739yq8zix.fsf@ut.hh.sledj.net>
	<877ho2w0ov.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<87fx2p0yjt.fsf@ut.hh.sledj.net>
	<87vdbkfwgr.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.2-20-g89ec2c1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.1.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
From: David Edmondson <dme@dme.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:04:21 +0100
Message-ID: <87wrw0ja56.fsf@ut.hh.sledj.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: list

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:15:48 -0700, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> Sure. Hiding a message with 'b' is visually identical to hiding it with
> RET.

That's not quite true. `b' will (would) hide only the body. If the
header is visible `b' will not hide it.

> Except that the internal mechanism is distinct, so that afterwards one
> can't make it visible again with RET.

The internal mechanism is distinct because it does a different
thing. The original code drew a distinction between header visibility,
body visibility and message-as-a-whole visibility. I agree that visually
there is no difference between 'header and body hidden' and 'message
hidden'. It's possible to have only the header visible, which I've yet
to find a use for. The code works as I intended, though I'd agree that
may not be the desired behaviour :-)

Given that I've never used `b' other than in testing, I'm not worried
about it going away.

dme.
-- 
David Edmondson, http://dme.org