Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:29:38 -0700
From: Ian Main <imain@redhat.com>
To: Franz Fellner <alpine.art.de@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <544152024e296_2a9f1665e947d@ovo.mains.priv.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <20141017183538.GI20696@TP_L520.localdomain>
References: <543ecf59e21b8_2c291569e8c7e@ovo.mains.priv.notmuch>
	<20141016144109.GB3471@TP_L520.localdomain>
	<544046f358233_2c291569e8c76@ovo.mains.priv.notmuch>
	<20141017183538.GI20696@TP_L520.localdomain>
Subject: Re: notmuch vim patches
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Precedence: list

Franz Fellner wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:30:11 -0700, Ian Main <imain@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Franz Fellner wrote:
> > > 
> > >  
> > > > I'm starting to realize that I could default to using 'enter' to both
> > > > open URI's and view attachments.  Any other ideas welcome.
> > > 
> > > - make some of the functions public so users can bind them to keys they
> > >   want
> > > - introduce show_[prev,next]_unread_msg, probably factor out
> > >   "show_scroll_to_msg()" and implement prev/next msg with that?
> > 
> > You know I was just reading a thread and hit 'a' to archive a message
> > within the thread and for some reason it hung for a few seconds.. but it
> > made me think we should be able to press 'a' (or whatever archive key)
> > and have it archive and move to next unread.  That seems to me to be a
> > good behavior with a natural flow.
> 
> Yes, sounds good.
> Today I thought of a more generic approach:
> pass a query that a message should match.
> :notmuch-show-next-message tag:unread		# go to the next unread
> message in thread

next unread message in thread, and if there are no more in thread, the next
unread message in the next thread?

> :notmuch-show-next-message from:"Ian Main" 	# got to the next
> message in thread sent by "Ian Main"
> ...
> The user then can map keys to custom commands.
> 
> Good or too generic?

I'm not sure how easy it would be to invoke that.. if you think you'd use
it I'd say it's fine but I don't think I would.

> 
> Furthermore I thought of rearranging the sources:
> - Put files in Vundle/*-compatible dirs, would simplify development.
>   (Currently I have several files symlinked from notmuch-src into .vim)
> - Put the "heavy" ruby code into its own file. Today I got an error I
>   could not deal with because line numbers did not match. Also I read
>   about the possibility that the ruby interpreter might optimize only
>   seperate files. This could lead to better performance.
> 

Yes, that's a good idea too.  I notice that the github version has a
different layout. I think it is vundle compatible?  I know it makes moving
patches from the official repo to the github one challenging.

    Ian