* [sup-talk] Piping multiple messages
@ 2009-03-24 19:45 Mark Alexander
2009-03-24 21:01 ` William Morgan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mark Alexander @ 2009-03-24 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
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? :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [sup-talk] Piping multiple messages
2009-03-24 19:45 [sup-talk] Piping multiple messages Mark Alexander
@ 2009-03-24 21:01 ` William Morgan
2009-03-25 8:58 ` Nicolas Pouillard
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: William Morgan @ 2009-03-24 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [sup-talk] Piping multiple messages
2009-03-24 21:01 ` William Morgan
@ 2009-03-25 8:58 ` Nicolas Pouillard
2009-03-25 11:11 ` vasudeva
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Pouillard @ 2009-03-25 8:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [sup-talk] Piping multiple messages
2009-03-25 8:58 ` Nicolas Pouillard
@ 2009-03-25 11:11 ` vasudeva
2009-03-25 12:20 ` Nicolas Pouillard
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: vasudeva @ 2009-03-25 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [sup-talk] Piping multiple messages
2009-03-25 11:11 ` vasudeva
@ 2009-03-25 12:20 ` Nicolas Pouillard
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Pouillard @ 2009-03-25 12:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-03-25 12:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-03-24 19:45 [sup-talk] Piping multiple messages Mark Alexander
2009-03-24 21:01 ` William Morgan
2009-03-25 8:58 ` Nicolas Pouillard
2009-03-25 11:11 ` vasudeva
2009-03-25 12:20 ` Nicolas Pouillard
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox