Proper threading? (technical aspects)

[Steve Lamb]

On Fri, Jun 11, 1999 at 11:34:08PM +0100, Dr. Martin R. Hadam wrote:
>  Despite the capitalization (which makes it difficult to read) you keep
> introducing features which I never asked for. 

    No, I am pointing out to do what you want you need to provide an option to
retain the behavior that is currently present.  You seem to be missing that.

    *You* don't care that it breaks how it does it for other people.  *they*
care.  It is for *them* that the option needs to go in so *you* can get what
*you* want.

>  My issue was only to change the current sort algorithm to something
> better. This may leave some users behind yet is compatible across the
> board and a significant improvement (imo). You may dispute the
> improvement, but you'll have a hard time demonstrating that it will
> break compatibility with the Windows (or older OS/2) version(s). 

    Which requires an option which needs to be STORED somewhere in the
configuration file.  Do you understand that?

>  Wow - I am impressed. You do know a *lot* about PMAIL's the
> internals!!! with the "binary" sort that I've proposed, just treat
> ">High Unread >Normal Unread >Low Unread" like the "0" (I'm sure you
> will come up with some more insider knowledge about those numbers). I'm
> actually too lazy to care about. And it does not matter what the values
> are.

    If you treat them the same then the priorities aren't sorted.  That is
broken and is not an option.

>    if msg_priority code = ("0" or "  "High Unread" or "Normal Unread"
> or "Low Unread") then msg_priority code=0 
>    else msg_priority code=1
>    (then submit to *standard* sorting)

    IE, you're removing priority completely.  NOT a viable option.  That
breaks the implementation.  Unacceptable.  PERIOD.

>  With those provisions included, my proposal still works.

    Works.. for you, not people who want priorities sorted.  Get a clue.

>  I'd say this is something that pmmail users should ask for - now.

    And... your point?  We've provided viable alternatives that you ignore.
You're the only one harping on this point.  What does this tell you?  Can we
drop it now.  You're wrong, end of discussion.

-- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------