scs@lokkur.UUCP (Steve Simmons) (05/07/89)
When using the space bar in the index page, the direction of travel is
always downwards (to higher number messages).
If you have your 'sorting' criteria set up by date, that's fine -- you
proceed thru your unread messages from oldest to newest. But if you
have the order reversed (newest is 1, oldest is max) using the space
bar to navigate thru messages does the opposite of what you want. For
2.3 I'd suggest this be changed so that the ' ' direction is inverted
when the user does a 'reverse' setting on date.
--
Steve Simmons ...sharkey!lokkur!scs scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us
"Gordon Way's astonishment at suddenly being shot dead was nothing to
his astonishment at what happened next." -- Douglas Adamsphil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) (05/08/89)
In article <1415@lokkur.UUCP> scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons) writes: >If you have your 'sorting' criteria set up by date, that's fine -- you >proceed thru your unread messages from oldest to newest. But if you >have the order reversed (newest is 1, oldest is max) using the space >bar to navigate thru messages does the opposite of what you want. For >2.3 I'd suggest this be changed so that the ' ' direction is inverted >when the user does a 'reverse' setting on date. NO, NO, NO The reason that I have sorted my messages from newest to oldest is so that I can read the mail IN THAT ORDER. Otherwise I find myself writing answers to notes that are superceeded in a later note. Please leave as it is. -- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* J. Philip Miller - Div of Biostat - Washington Univ Medical School phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet phil@wubios.wustl - bitnet (314) 362-3617 c90562jm@wuvmd - alternate bitnet
rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) (05/09/89)
In article <1415@lokkur.UUCP> scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons) writes:
+
+When using the space bar in the index page, the direction of travel is
+always downwards (to higher number messages).
+
+If you have your 'sorting' criteria set up by date, that's fine -- you
+proceed thru your unread messages from oldest to newest. But if you
+have the order reversed (newest is 1, oldest is max) using the space
+bar to navigate thru messages does the opposite of what you want. For
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Perhaps, it's what *you* want, but not necessarily what everyone wants.
(But, that's okay. Let's just not presume what any one of us thinks is
"natural" really is. :-) )
+2.3 I'd suggest this be changed so that the ' ' direction is inverted
+when the user does a 'reverse' setting on date.
The "logic" here is that the sort criteria change the numbering and
ordering of messages as displayed by elm. Obviously, as Steve points
out, this governs the index screen. However, Steve is suggesting that
it *not* govern the movement from one message to the next while in
"pager mode" (i.e. when you display a sequence of messages without
returning to the index screen).
I see a problem with Steve's suggestion. He suggests that ' ' in pager
mode follow traverse the messages in the "natural" order if your sort sequence
is reverse-date-sent or reverse-date-received (he didn't say which). Does
Steve mean they should be traversed in mailbox order or does he
mean they should be traversed in date-sent (or date-received order)?
If the former, things could get confusing because mailbox order is
not necessarily the reverse of reverse-date-{sent,received}. Mailbox
order is very unlikely to be the reverse of say reverse-subject order.
If the latter, what do we do when someone chooses to sort by subject,
or reverse-subject, or one of the other sort modes?
I dunno. Seems more natural to me to have the sort criteria govern both
the index screen and the traversal of messages in pager mode. My $.02.
--
Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code Library
Email: ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob OR rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM
Office: (415) 823-2417 Room 4E850O San Ramon Valley Administrative Center
Residence: (415) 827-4301 R Bar JB, Concord, Californiascs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) (05/09/89)
In article <5222@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes: >In article <1415@lokkur.UUCP> scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons) writes: >+But if you >+have the order reversed (newest is 1, oldest is max) using the space >+bar to navigate thru messages does the opposite of what you want. For > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >The "logic" here is that the sort criteria change the numbering and >ordering of messages as displayed by elm. Obviously, as Steve points >out, this governs the index screen. However, Steve is suggesting that >it *not* govern the movement from one message to the next while in >"pager mode" (i.e. when you display a sequence of messages without >returning to the index screen). Right, that's what I'm suggesting. You nailed it more clearly than I did. >I see a problem with Steve's suggestion. He suggests that ' ' in pager >mode follow traverse the messages in the "natural" order if your sort sequence >is reverse-date-sent or reverse-date-received (he didn't say which). Does >Steve mean they should be traversed in mailbox order or does he >mean they should be traversed in date-sent (or date-received order)? 'Natural' order is a pretty slippery term here. One of the neat features of elm is it lets you define what you want the ordering to be. Want mailbox order? You got it. Want by date sent? You got it. Want those reversed? You got it. Better for our discussion if we call it "user-selected order". Now we can define the request to be: When at the end of a displayed message, the ' ' command intuitively means 'go to the next message' rather than return to index page. What message is 'next' is determined by the ordering criteria set by the user, with 'reversed' setting going to lower message numbers and 'normal' settings going to higher message numbers. >If the latter, what do we do when someone chooses to sort by subject, >or reverse-subject, or one of the other sort modes? My reasoning: When a user selects a sorting criteria I feel he is requesting the order for both the display *and* the accessing of messages. I could be wrong on this, one user has already disagreed. For some curious reason users at ITI tend to use elm the way I show them, which often includes grabbing a copy of my .elmrc. :-) If other folks disagree I'll happily sit down and shut up. >My $.02. >Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code Library Cheap at many times the price. Steve Simmons Just another midwestern boy scs@vax3.iti.org -- or -- ...!sharkey!itivax!scs "Hey...you *can* get here from here!"
frank@ladcgw.UUCP (Frank Mayhar) (05/10/89)
In article <5222@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes: }In article <1415@lokkur.UUCP> scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons) writes: }+When using the space bar in the index page, the direction of travel is }+always downwards (to higher number messages). }+If you have your 'sorting' criteria set up by date, that's fine -- you }+proceed thru your unread messages from oldest to newest. But if you }+have the order reversed (newest is 1, oldest is max) using the space }+bar to navigate thru messages does the opposite of what you want. For }Perhaps, it's what *you* want, but not necessarily what everyone wants. It's certainly what _I_ want. }[...] Does Steve mean they should be traversed in mailbox order or does he }mean they should be traversed in date-sent (or date-received order)? }If the latter, what do we do when someone chooses to sort by subject, }or reverse-subject, or one of the other sort modes? }I dunno. Seems more natural to me to have the sort criteria govern both }the index screen and the traversal of messages in pager mode. My $.02. I, too, have been bitten by this. My suggestion is that there be a new command in pager mode, analogous to space, that traverses the mailbox in whatever order the user specifies, by default the sort order. Controlled by a new option (say, traverse-order), that may be set to any of the values of sort-order. If left unset, it uses sort-order. How does that sound? It would certainly solve my problem, and Steve's as well. AND, it would let Rob do what he wants, too. -- Frank Mayhar ..!uunet!ladcgw!frank (soon to be frank@ladc.bull.com) Frank-Mayhar%ladc@bco-multics.hbi.honeywell.com (until June 1) Bull HN Los Angeles Development Center 5250 W. Century Blvd., LA, CA 90045 Phone: (213) 216-6241
rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) (05/10/89)
In article <1114@itivax.iti.org> scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
+'Natural' order is a pretty slippery term here. One of the neat
+features of elm is it lets you define what you want the ordering
+to be. Want mailbox order? You got it. Want by date sent? You
+got it. Want those reversed? You got it. Better for our discussion
+if we call it "user-selected order". Now we can define the request
+to be:
+
+When at the end of a displayed message, the ' ' command intuitively
+means 'go to the next message' rather than return to index page.
+What message is 'next' is determined by the ordering criteria set
+by the user, with 'reversed' setting going to lower message numbers
+and 'normal' settings going to higher message numbers.
+
+My reasoning: When a user selects a sorting criteria I feel he is
+requesting the order for both the display *and* the accessing of
+messages.
But that's how it is!!! The sort criteria affects both the order of
listings on the index screen and the traversal of messages when in
pager mode. Don't get confused by the message numbers. The message
numbers used in pager mode are the same message numbers used on the index
screen. And these numbers reflect the sorted order of messages,
not the physical order of messages in the file.
When you say:
+What message is 'next' is determined by the ordering criteria set
+by the user, with 'reversed' setting going to lower message numbers
+and 'normal' settings going to higher message numbers.
it sounds like you are mistaking the message numbers to be fixed regardless
of the sort criteria.
--
Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code Library
Email: ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob OR rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM
Office: (415) 823-2417 Room 4E850O San Ramon Valley Administrative Center
Residence: (415) 827-4301 R Bar JB, Concord, Californiapae@cos.com (Paul A. Ebersman) (05/10/89)
From article <377@ladcgw.UUCP>, by frank@ladcgw.UUCP (Frank Mayhar): > I, too, have been bitten by this. My suggestion is that there be a new > command in pager mode, analogous to space, that traverses the mailbox in > whatever order the user specifies, by default the sort order. Controlled > by a new option (say, traverse-order), that may be set to any of the values > of sort-order. If left unset, it uses sort-order. How does that sound? > It would certainly solve my problem, and Steve's as well. AND, it would let > Rob do what he wants, too. Seems somewhat complicated, like creeping featurism. I don't think that anyone would argue that if you specify reverse-sort, elm sorts the index page in reverse-order and that using space in the pager, you will go through the messages in reverse-order. This is very easy to explain to a novice. Adding an extra tweek to have two sort orders seem hard to add. I would rather see enhancements to the pager that noone has objected to, such as being able to scroll backwards within a message, like less. My 2 cents worth. -- Paul A. Ebersman @ Corporation for Open Systems pae@cos.COM or pae%cos.com@uunet.uu.net or {uunet, sundc, hadron}!cos!pae ( The difference between practice and theory in practice is always greater than the difference between practice and theory in theory. )
scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) (05/10/89)
In article <5234@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes: >In article <1114@itivax.iti.org> scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: >+My reasoning: When a user selects a sorting criteria I feel he is >+requesting the order for both the display *and* the accessing of >+messages. > >But that's how it is!!! The sort criteria affects both the order of >listings on the index screen and the traversal of messages when in >pager mode. Don't get confused by the message numbers. The message >numbers used in pager mode are the same message numbers used on the index >screen. And these numbers reflect the sorted order of messages, >not the physical order of messages in the file. Zowie! Either we are having a major league misunderstanding here or we've stumbled into a bug. Take this situation. I have my mailbox sorted in Reverse Date Mail Sent. I have 3 read messages which came in on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. I have 3 unread messages which came in on the 4th, 5th, and 6th. My mailbox display looks like this on startup: N 1 May 6 Sender Topic N 2 May 5 Sender Topic -> N 3 May 4 Sender Topic 4 May 3 Sender Topic 5 May 2 Sender Topic 6 May 1 Sender Topic I read message 3 with ' '. At the end of the message, I hit space again. It throws me to message 4. Is this proper behavior? I want it to go to message 2, ie, reversed like my sort order. For the record, I see this performance on 4.3BSD and System V on a UNIX-PC. Steve Simmons Just another midwestern boy scs@vax3.iti.org -- or -- ...!sharkey!itivax!scs "Hey...you *can* get here from here!"
rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) (05/11/89)
In article <1129@itivax.iti.org> scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
+Zowie! Either we are having a major league misunderstanding here or
+we've stumbled into a bug. Take this situation. I have my mailbox
+sorted in Reverse Date Mail Sent. I have 3 read messages which came
+in on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. I have 3 unread messages which came in
+on the 4th, 5th, and 6th. My mailbox display looks like this on
+startup:
+
+ N 1 May 6 Sender Topic
+ N 2 May 5 Sender Topic
+ -> N 3 May 4 Sender Topic
+ 4 May 3 Sender Topic
+ 5 May 2 Sender Topic
+ 6 May 1 Sender Topic
+
+I read message 3 with ' '. At the end of the message, I hit space again.
+It throws me to message 4. Is this proper behavior? I want it to go to
+message 2, ie, reversed like my sort order. For the record, I see this
+performance on 4.3BSD and System V on a UNIX-PC.
Zowie! You're confused. :-)
Let's presume the messages were physically added to your folder in
chronological order. That means the message dated May 1 is first in
your folder, May 2 is second, and so forth with the messaged dated May 6
last in the folder. Let's also presume that you have specified
reverse-date-sent as the sort criterion.
Now when you fire up elm, you get the display as you've pictured above.
The messages are listed in reverse-date-sent order. The numbers in the
second column reflect the sorted message sequence, not the physical
sequence of the messages in the folder. Elm never reveals to you
in any display what the physical order of messages is, only the sorted
order.
So, although the May 2nd letter *precedes* the May 3rd letter physically
in the folder, it *follows* it in this index display.
Now, if you read through the May 3rd letter (letter #4) with ' ', at the
end of the message, you will get the first "page" of the "next" letter,
letter #4, which is the May 2nd letter.
You are reading the messages in reverse-date-sent order and the index
displays the messages in reverse-date-sent order. Next = downward
on the index screen = increasing message numbers in column #2.
Poof! You're enlightened! :-)
--
Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code Library
Email: ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob OR rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM
Office: (415) 823-2417 Room 4E850O San Ramon Valley Administrative Center
Residence: (415) 827-4301 R Bar JB, Concord, Californiazeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) (05/11/89)
>I would rather see enhancements to the pager that noone has objected to, >such as being able to scroll backwards within a message, like less. I would definitely like to see someone add this. Even a simple 1 page scroll back would be useful. -- Jon Zeeff zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us Ann Arbor, MI sharkey!b-tech!zeeff
scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) (05/11/89)
In article <5257@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes: >Zowie! You're confused. :-) No no, Gaston, after you! :-) I understand about the physical order vs. display order in the mailbox; we're in synch on that. >The numbers in the >second column reflect the sorted message sequence, not the physical >sequence of the messages in the folder. Elm never reveals to you >in any display what the physical order of messages is, only the sorted >order. Unless you select mailbox order, right? >So, although the May 2nd letter *precedes* the May 3rd letter physically >in the folder, it *follows* it in this index display. I'm still with you... >Now, if you read through the May 3rd letter (letter #4) with ' ', at the >end of the message, you will get the first "page" of the "next" letter, >letter #4, which is the May 2nd letter. Yes, that's the performance I'm seeing. >You are reading the messages in reverse-date-sent order and the index >displays the messages in reverse-date-sent order. Next = downward >on the index screen = increasing message numbers in column #2. > >Poof! You're enlightened! :-) Aha! Right again! Unfortunately, what I'm enlightened about is where we are misunderstanding each other! :-) [[jeez, this is actually fun]] I want the meaning of *next* to match what onc has selected for the sorting option. To wit: if ( display order != reversed ) next = downward = increasing message numbers in column #2 else next = upward = decreasing message numbers in column #2 Is everyone else bored with this? :-) Steve Simmons Just another midwestern boy scs@vax3.iti.org -- or -- ...!sharkey!itivax!scs "Hey...you *can* get here from here!"
ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) (05/11/89)
[edited for brevity] In article <5257@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes: >In article <1129@itivax.iti.org> scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: >+Zowie! Either we are having a major league misunderstanding here or >+we've stumbled into a bug. >+...sorted in Reverse Date Mail Sent. >+ My mailbox display looks like this on startup: >+ >+ N 1 May 6 Sender Topic >+ N 2 May 5 Sender Topic >+ -> N 3 May 4 Sender Topic >+ 4 May 3 Sender Topic >+ 5 May 2 Sender Topic >+ 6 May 1 Sender Topic >+ >+[Steve explains that ' ' reads the msgs in order 3 4 5....] > >[Rob explains that that is the 'correct' thing for elm to do.] And I say that what elm is doing wrong is that it is NOT starting with it's pointer on message #1. And that if it DID start with its pointer on msg #1 the problem would (Poof!) go away. So, Why doesn't it start with its pointer on message # 1?????? Curious, -- ...!hadron\ "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles ...!sundc\ Schedule: (n.) An ever changing | NetExpress Comm., Inc. ...!pyrdc\ nightmare. | 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300 ...!uunet!netxcom!ewiles | Vienna, VA 22180
scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) (05/12/89)
In article <1241@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: >>+ My mailbox display looks like this on startup: >>+ >>+ N 1 May 6 Sender Topic >>+ -> N 2 May 5 Sender Topic >>+ 3 May 4 Sender Topic > >And I say that what elm is doing wrong is that it is NOT starting with >it's pointer on message #1. And that if it DID start with its pointer >on msg #1 the problem would (Poof!) go away. So, Why doesn't it start >with its pointer on message # 1?????? Hey, I can answer that one! Elm has a *feature* that causes it to point to the oldest unread message on startup. This feature is controlled by the 'pointnew' setting in your elmrc file. To disable this, in your elmrc find the "pointnew" line and set it to "pointnew = OFF". For the record, I really like this feature. Of course, I'm widely becoming known as weird. Steve Simmons Just another midwestern boy scs@vax3.iti.org -- or -- ...!sharkey!itivax!scs "Hey...you *can* get here from here!"
rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) (05/12/89)
In article <1145@itivax.iti.org> scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
+I want the meaning of *next* [in pager mode] to match what one has
+selected for the sorting option. To wit:
+ if ( display order != reversed )
+ next = downward = increasing message numbers in column #2
+ else
+ next = upward = decreasing message numbers in column #2
But when you're on the index screen, next *always* means downward
(increasing message numbers), regardless of whether the sort criterion
is a reversed type or not, because the index screen listing is *already*
sorted.
So what you're wanting is for "reverse" to have two separate meanings.
For sorting on the index screen, it would mean a reverse order from
it's unreversed counterpart. For pager mode it would mean the reverse
of whatever the index screen is. Why have one option govern two
actions in disparate ways?
The way it is now: the sort criterion is used to sequence the messages,
whether it be a reverse criterion or not. The sort sequence is used
on the index screen and next means the same thing (follows the same
order whether you are on the index screen or in pager mode).
--
Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code Library
Email: ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob OR rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM
Office: (415) 823-2417 Room 4E850O San Ramon Valley Administrative Center
Residence: (415) 827-4301 R Bar JB, Concord, Californiaewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) (05/12/89)
In article <1150@itivax.iti.org> scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: >In article <1241@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: >>In some article long forgotten I think Steve Simmons wrote: >>> My mailbox display looks like this on startup: >>> >>> N 1 May 6 Sender Topic >>> -> N 2 May 5 Sender Topic >>> 3 May 4 Sender Topic >> >>And I say that what elm is doing wrong is that it is NOT starting with >>it's pointer on message #1. > >Hey, I can answer that one! Elm has a *feature* that causes it to >point to the oldest unread message on startup. This feature is >controlled by the 'pointnew' setting in your elmrc file. Okay, If I turn that 'feature' off, will ELM still set the pointer to the first new message? Or will it *always* start me out at message #1 regardless of whether Msg #1 was new or not? If the latter, then I believe the feature was written illogically. Logically: You wish to read your messages in the order in which you've had them sorted. Therefore a "point to new" feature should point to the FIRST NEW article in the sorted list. Which in your example above would be #1. If it is the case that you wish to read them in reverse order from that in which you sorted your messages, then I'd say that you're out of step with a large part of the world. In which case you are invited to write the code for that option yourself and offer it to Syd for inclusion. How's that? -- ...!hadron\ "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles ...!sundc\ Schedule: (n.) An ever changing | NetExpress Comm., Inc. ...!pyrdc\ nightmare. | 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300 ...!uunet!netxcom!ewiles | Vienna, VA 22180
scs@lokkur.UUCP (Steve Simmons) (05/13/89)
In article <5275@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes: > [ and points out an inconsistancy in what I ask for ] >So what you're wanting is for "reverse" to have two separate meanings. >For sorting on the index screen, it would mean a reverse order from >it's unreversed counterpart. For pager mode it would mean the reverse >of whatever the index screen is. Why have one option govern two >actions in disparate ways? Good point. I had applied it two ways in my thinking, but you're right -- that's not the way it would strike most people. For the folks who asked -- yes, I always read my mail oldest to newest. Often I'll get many messages in a group discussion, and prefer to see the flow of logic (if any!) rather than start with the current state and work backwards. Kind of like reading news, actually. Since Rob has been so good as to clarify the difference here, I think this brings up yet another feature request. We have ' ' for read next, 'j' and 'k' for read-downward and read-upward skipping deletes, 'J' and 'K' for read-downward and read-upward not skipping deletes. I'd like to hear folks opinions on an elmrc setting to redefine the meaning of 'next' for the space command. Judging from the reaction so far there is a small but real group who'd like that; hopefully we now have a fairly exact definition of what that change would be. reads the goes up/down to the next unread message. -- Steve Simmons ...sharkey!lokkur!scs scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us "Gordon Way's astonishment at suddenly being shot dead was nothing to his astonishment at what happened next." -- Douglas Adams
tom@wave4.webo.dg.com (Tom Jordahl) (05/16/89)
In article <9336@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) writes: >>I would rather see enhancements to the pager that noone has objected to, >>such as being able to scroll backwards within a message, like less. > >I would definitely like to see someone add this. Even a simple 1 page >scroll back would be useful. I simply use less as the default pager. Do many people do this? Is more used for this default? Why would you use the built-in pager if more powerfull pagers are "standard" ( I am referring to more here) on your system? just curious -- -->Tom Jordahl<-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Data General Corp. tom@wave4.dg.com Unix Development Westboro tom@dg-rtp.dg.com Westboro, MA UUCP: ..!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!wave4!tom "... until then, any action will be like trying to herd cats." -Gene Spafford
zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) (05/16/89)
>>>I would rather see enhancements to the pager that noone has objected to, >>>such as being able to scroll backwards within a message, like less. >> >used for this default? Why would you use the built-in pager if more powerfull >pagers are "standard" ( I am referring to more here) on your system? An external pager is often too slow to load for each message. It depends on system load - on an unloaded system it's ok once the pager is in the cache. -- Jon Zeeff zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us Ann Arbor, MI sharkey!b-tech!zeeff
wieland@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey J Wieland) (05/16/89)
In article <32@wave4.webo.dg.com> tom@wave4.dg.com (Tom Jordahl) writes: >In article <9336@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) writes: >>>I would rather see enhancements to the pager that noone has objected to, >>>such as being able to scroll backwards within a message, like less. >> >>I would definitely like to see someone add this. Even a simple 1 page >>scroll back would be useful. > >I simply use less as the default pager. Do many people do this? Is more >used for this default? Why would you use the built-in pager if more powerfull >pagers are "standard" ( I am referring to more here) on your system? > >just curious We use the builtin pager because of the large startup overhead for our machines -- most of them are quite memory starved, and it can take quite a while for "pg" or "more" to start up. While elm takes longer to start up than, say, mailx, (due to its larger size) once it gets going it is much faster to use. A comment on an earlier message -- I would also like to see the functionality of "readmsg" moved into elm. It can take 10 minutes or more to save 80 messages to a file, because readmsg must be invoked by elm for each one. Mailx does this much faster. Readmsg is still useful as a standalone program. Jeff Wieland wieland@ecn.purdue.edu
sfreed@charon.unm.edu (Steven Freed CIRT) (05/23/89)
In article <1129@itivax.iti.org> scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: >I read message 3 with ' '. At the end of the message, I hit space again. >It throws me to message 4. Is this proper behavior? I want it to go to >message 2, ie, reversed like my sort order. Sorry, folks, but I am *really* confused. Why can't you just hit the 'k' key or the up-arrow instead of the space-bar??? I think I fully understand what you are asking for, but if we each get our little pet feature added to Elm, we suddenly end up with a very complicated, cludgy program which nobody likes because it has caught a severe case of the "creeping-featurisms". Even though there are a couple of things that I would like to see changed/ added to Elm that would be great for me and my installation, I feel the developers of Elm are doing a wonderful job, and I will adapt to whatever they (the team) decides best, based upon our (the users) suggestions. (and yes, I really think changing 'q' and adding 'Q' was a silly decision.) Thanks, Steve. sfreed@ariel.unm.edu --