From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 905556DE0946 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 09:02:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.52 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.113, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.652, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f9W6pb2Qy6ml for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 09:02:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com (mail-wm0-f68.google.com [74.125.82.68]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BFF16DE0297 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 09:02:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-f68.google.com with SMTP id c85so29108339wmi.1 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 09:02:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dme-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=to:subject:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=X0hjQBG/HbpgPUl/RKCvJGTChpFO/AWsl/10k1B+xpM=; b=R4LTqaYyc9vivJyQPsuBlPZtl/ZWh6pC5nlS+Ak3oXQmVnJ6BJ42yiJ/XOuOq4RAPl mMbi8Pta49poYvckHs2lp5W1QFWbxIOg9rPypQyluyAb0OI7hEhedo063ubq/x3JJ+IG gmt8MY64emCLyV1JxB0DQsJ+9UGPX2iEgkc0nvpk1ZHPcJe7QQg1acfYM+FLV7QB5sNC FIg5BJmxCmc9RSWo2xO+Qq6C3PvtaO27MT76W78lDHK5Nh6uHq6sB34oNNc25zPKrqKe k0D1Bw/Jx4drPBIgOeZxRJMFK6+XpTVNmublvrGQ2Vj0cjOUxNmzqRwte9zZBF6BrVcH QSFQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=X0hjQBG/HbpgPUl/RKCvJGTChpFO/AWsl/10k1B+xpM=; b=WEXcdNZ3o5FikC/K6xyDnJK20FJPg/6srv5Bz8PW45dR3PncY7mq/O/Aza2fKy51gu nJy3IUCx/oNY+24wUlzP0S569sZRkaMzA5aMy16oXddTR7QhlTlxl4fpE9nTcQ1OoNWa 6VOCm5qHd/u+afD6xgpxhgjkXbhzP9QFwe3laH8DeWHdpT/qPfmr4StxlfmX9Hkl6Jd7 0nbHCnzYaOPQI45KpoZ2vQimS5IbpZCLqXyfw9DpF+R1fq/XHOImCwFC6BoaCR563kSX LmHHj9a6YgMi4yOS0lZtupZQae/A0z14ALqJlgUmHgF4ft4K55IcMHCTpjE3oy/bxB3B 2ESg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXK02SI8tSeXph81KPRoGz93KhklaKRDbSj6uldqJu2Aq9Tk2TKXJpQn3q/gAAvpXg== X-Received: by 10.28.107.77 with SMTP id g74mr37802495wmc.109.1483030930537; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 09:02:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from disaster-area.hh.sledj.net (disaster-area.hh.sledj.net. [81.149.164.25]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a13sm66601294wma.18.2016.12.29.09.02.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 29 Dec 2016 09:02:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (disaster-area.hh.sledj.net [local]) by disaster-area.hh.sledj.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id 3fc5d7e8; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:02:08 +0000 (UTC) To: David Bremner , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH v1 0/2] Improve the display of headers. In-Reply-To: <87a8beg7uw.fsf@rocinante.cs.unb.ca> References: <20161228121825.11265-1-dme@dme.org> <87a8beg7uw.fsf@rocinante.cs.unb.ca> X-HGTTG: heart-of-gold From: David Edmondson Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:02:08 +0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:02:14 -0000 On Thu, Dec 29 2016, David Bremner wrote: > David Edmondson writes: > >> This is a pair of patches that attempt to make header display more >> pleasant to look at. RFC! >> >> I will update the tests if the results of the changes are considered >> useful, of course. >> > > Hi David; > > The wrapping seems a bit fragile. Some of the lines are wrapped to the > left column and others line up with the headers. To reproduce, try > id:87wpgjxeia.fsf@nikula.org at about 40 columns. It looks like two > different kinds of wrapping going on. This doesn't reproduce for me. Do you have any interesting settings relating to line wrapping or truncation? > About aligning the headers I'm not sure how I feel yet. I probably > need to use it a bit to give an informed opinion. I agree it makes > the individual headers easier to pick out, but I have some kind of > knee jerk reaction to using up space that way. That might be my 1980s > VT52 instincts kicking in uselessly though. Agreed. I've been playing with another patch to hide the wrapped headers behind a button, but that is running into difficulties with `indent-rigidly' and invisible text...