Proper threading? (technical aspects)

[Steve Lamb]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 21:33:58 +0100, Dr. Martin R. Hadam wrote:

> Hence there is absolutely NO INFLUENCE of the FOLDER.INI file under
>the provisions described for implementing such a modified "read status"
>sort algorithm despite your claims to the contrary. Please try to think
>and understand about it to the extent of actually looking at the files
>before writing more emails.

    100% *WRONG*.

> If you had read what I've been trying to explain and not just written
>inflated responses, you'd have realized by now that I did not suggest
>to change sort preferences - I suggested to change the sort algorithm
>for the "read status" sort preference. 

    I read that you nit.  Did you read what I wrote?  Here, I'll remove case
so you don't have to get confused.

IF YOU CHANGE THE ALGORITHM YOU NEED TO MAKE IT AN OPTION ELSE PEOPLE WILL
COMPLAIN.  BY MAKING IT AN OPTION, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT, YOU MUST ALSO
CHANGE THE CONFIGURATION FILE.  THAT MEANS A CHANGE TO FOLDER.INI WHICH, IN
TURN, BREAKS COMPATIBILITY.  

    A leads to B leads to C.  Please attempt to follow along!

>To the extent of repeating myself - "read status" currently sorts for
>integers from 0 to 11 (or more? doesn't matter here). My proposal was to
>change that sort algorithm to a kind of "binary" sort of "0" vs all the rest.

    Which breaks how it works now, can and will cause people to complain,
require an option, requiring another change in the config file, BREAKING
COMPATIBILITY.

>The other quantity - those who want to have unread on top and all the rest
>sorted in - is pretty significant, however. 

    In your opinion.  You don't know one way or the other.

> Try to learn a second sentence - there is NO break in compatibility,
>there is NO configuration needed for what I have proposed. period.

    Read the all caps block above.

>And I'm not proposing to  completely destroy current sorting behavior - my
>suggestion only does what "READ STATUS" suggests by its utter characters:
>"read" vs "unread". No more. (you'd have a hard time reasoning that
>"priority" has something to do with "read status" to a novice user). 

    You are aware that there are 3 unread status, right?  
High Unread
Normal Unread
Low Unread

    You are aware that until PMMail98 it sorted it as:
Normal Unread
High Unread
Low Unread

    ...Right?

> It admittedly breaks sorting for priority etc, but honestly - I
>couldn't care less. I'd estimate that the count of users applauding my
>proposed changes outnumbers those disapproving it by a factor of more than 10
>(ten).

    You couldn't care less.  And I couldn't care less about what you want,
either.  I do care, however, about not breaking the behavior of the product
for the whims of a few when a new, better version looms on the horizen which
will make such issues *MOOT*.

> While I've carefully read your email even to the point of
>understanding (not approving) your point 

    No, you didn't.  Go back and read it again until you do.

>it occurs to me that you have up to now not grasped the underlying
>assumptions of my suggestions. You keep reiterating a compatibility problem
>that just does not exist.

    Because you are so insistant on breaking the behavior to get what you
want.  Break compatibility, break behavior.  Either way you are breaking
something.  Does that clear it up?

    Hint: Break = bad.


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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc

iQA/AwUBN2FoCXpf7K2LbpnFEQIhdgCfQo1KBhIqGMKvLakwl2UevD/Izv4AoJvD
jML16lCnuIQhkXJOxXEbyEFr
=rD4t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----