[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       exmh-workers
Subject:    Re: 2.4 pre's
From:       Brent Welch <welch () panasas ! com>
Date:       2001-05-17 4:19:15
[Download RAW message or body]

>>>kchrist@lsil.com said:
 > The other fix you suggest, saving and restoring inside SeditSendOnly,
 > is what (I think) I ended up doing and committing to cvs.

 Yes - I saw that - it is relatively clean after all.

 > Of course, all my exmh($id,action) changes were based on the
 > assumption that having a variable that reliably indicated how we
 > started to edit a draft was a good thing. To that effect, I wanted
 > things to fail miserably if the variable was not set so that we would
 > be told and the code would be fixed. However, in fact, all that seems
 > to be needed is a variable that tells us if we are redistributing a
 > message or not. Should the exmh($id,action) changes be rolled back and
 > a different approach taken?

No - I appreciate your effort to wade in and clean up some code and unify
some different variables that were used for the same purpose.  I suppose
you could argue that everything done in the Mh_Anno* routines is a conglomeration
of different features and could be separated out.  That the action element
needs to be special cased supports that, but I dont' think it is worth fixing
right now. I agree with your current fix.

Care to unify the three different font specification mechanisms :-)
Or, as Tom Sawyer said,
"Sorry I can't go fishing, I'm having much to much fun painting this fence..."
--
Brent Welch
Software Architect, Panasas Inc
Pioneering Object-Based Network Storage (ONS)

www.panasas.com
welch@panasas.com




[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]