[imp] moving/deleting option

[Paul]

chuck> There are other times when I'm impressed that we manage to make
chuck> it all work.  It's a balancing act. :)

green> And a particularly well done one, too.

Indeed. I'd been looking at IMP 2.2.x and had decided it wasn't
sufficient at the time. The 2.3.x tree has all the features I felt
were necessary to sell the package while still being relatively simple
to build and maintain. It is a nice balance of added features without
going crazy on options, features and flags.

--
			Paul


>From chuck@horde.org Date: Tue,  4 Sep 2001 17:08:46 -0400
Return-Path: <chuck@horde.org>
Mailing-List: contact imp-help@lists.horde.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list imp@lists.horde.org
Received: (qmail 33512 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2001 21:10:53 -0000
Received: from h00104bc60b3c.ne.mediaone.net (HELO marina.horde.org) (24.91.198.7)
  by horde.org with SMTP; 4 Sep 2001 21:10:53 -0000
Received: by marina.horde.org (Postfix, from userid 33)
	id 5E0CC3D9F; Tue,  4 Sep 2001 17:08:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 206.243.191.252 ( [206.243.191.252])
	as user chuck@localhost by marina.horde.org with HTTP;
	Tue,  4 Sep 2001 17:08:46 -0400
Message-ID: <999637726.3b9542de3e126@marina.horde.org>
Date: Tue,  4 Sep 2001 17:08:46 -0400
From: Chuck Hagenbuch <chuck@horde.org>
To: imp@lists.horde.org
References: <200109041946.f84JkEL29335@ns1.pae.com>
In-Reply-To: <200109041946.f84JkEL29335@ns1.pae.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 2.3.7-cvs
Subject: Re: [imp] moving/deleting option 

Quoting Paul <list-imp@dragon.net>:

> One thing I do find appealing about IMP, though is that it's not yet
> feature and config laden. Considering the proportion of mailing list
> traffic that is concerned with getting it up in the first place,
> making it much more complicated isn't going to be fun long-term.

Adding one user preference isn't going to make IMP any easier or harder to get 
running.

> I hesitate to even mention it, considering how well it worked with
> emacs..., but...
> 
> Function cleanup hooks also have advantages and disadvantages. Makes
> the baseline code much cleaner but makes backward compatibility as
> folks do creative things with hook functions much harder.
> 
> Last suggestion would be a "simple" and "complex" set of params. Do
> something like hooks but only for supported hook code.

You're going to have to elaborate on all this. No idea what you're really 
suggesting.

-chuck

--
Charles Hagenbuch, <chuck@horde.org>
Some fallen angels have their good reasons.