From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wmorgan-sup@masanjin.net (William Morgan) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:16:35 -0700 Subject: [sup-talk] Why inbox-mode instead of default search? In-Reply-To: <1254074517-sup-4465@kronos> References: <1254070015-sup-5151@kronos> <1254073440-sup-2700@masanjin.net> <1254074517-sup-4465@kronos> Message-ID: <1254323181-sup-1735@masanjin.net> Reformatted excerpts from William Erik Baxter's message of 2009-09-27: > Both modes support archive and kill in some form. So I don't > understand how this argues for splitting as opposed to consolidating > the two modes. How does the notion of killing a thread that makes sense except in the context of having an special inbox mode? > The need for preallocated, special-purpose labels like > inbox and killed seems clear enough. However, minimizing the amount > of magical behavior they exhibit also seems beneficial, if only for > the sake of consistency. Treating the inbox as something other than > an ordinary label search is magical. The inbox is magical, because you do different things with your inbox than you do with non-inbox buffers: you classify threads into a) I'm done with this thread for now, but let me know if someone replies (archive); b) I'm done with this thread for now and don't let me know if someone replies (kill); c) I'll deal with this later (ignore). > A patch to add this command to inbox-mode appears in the August sup-talk > archive. I would like to see this feature become part of the base system. I agree. -- William