On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:47:11 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
> > >      (while (and (setq r (notmuch-show-goto-message-next))
> > >  		(not (notmuch-show-message-visible-p))))
> > >      (if r
> > >  	(progn
> > >  	  (notmuch-show-mark-read)
> > >  	  (notmuch-show-message-adjust))
> > > -      (goto-char (point-max)))))
> > > +      (if (and parent-buffer pop-at-end)
> > > +	  (progn
> > > +	    (kill-this-buffer)
> > > +	    (switch-to-buffer parent-buffer)
> > > +	    (forward-line 1))
> > > +	(goto-char (point-max))))))
> > 
> > Can you explain in words how this is expected to behave please?
> 
> Do you see a problem?

Not a problem, just trying to understand the behaviour (I have to revive
my advance/rewind patches at some point).

> If there is not another message, but there is a parent buffer and the
> pop-at-end variable is set, kill this buffer, go the parent, and move to
> the next thread.  Otherwise, go to the max point in the buffer.

I'm used to the cursor going to the bottom of the thread to let me know
that I reached the end, then I hit 'space' and move on to the next
thread. Will that behaviour be retained with this patch? (Well,
including your other patch which seemed to set `pop-at-end'.)

It's one of those things that I have to try out to understand properly I
expect.