Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!itivax!vax3!scs
From: scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Adding To Post-Pager Commands
Summary: Enable on an 'expert' basis
Message-ID: <929@itivax.iti.org>
Date: 5 Apr 89 20:24:58 GMT
References: <919@itivax.iti.org> <4941@pbhyf.PacBell.COM>
Sender: news@itivax.iti.org
Reply-To: scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Lines: 32

In article <4941@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes:
>At first glance adding 'a' as a "post-pager" mode command looks
>like it shouldn't be a problem.
>
>Elm being a MUA that babysits you, I wonder if allowing 'c'
>in "post-pager" mode would be good. If you have ask=ON in your
>elmrc, you really won't know whether the messages you have marked
>for deletion are the ones you really want deleted, since you
>can't see the index screen with those D's. Perhaps the availability
>of the 'c' command in "post-pager" mode could be tied to
>	1. user level
>	2. whether or not ask=ON
>	3. whether or not there are any messages to be deleted.
>
>or some combination thereof.

This seems far and away the best choice -- let experts do 'risky'
things, and keep the naive user safe.  As long as we're talking about
the commands that would be nice to have work in post-pager mode, I'd
like:
	J,K (in addition to j,k)
	$ (yes! and it should throw you back to menu mode when done)
	o
	x

Maybe I'm just greedy, but I want them all... :-)  Is this a radical
change in the elm structure (ie, are they separate command processors)
or are we actually reducing complexity by this change?

   Steve Simmons         Just another midwestern boy
   scs@vax3.iti.org  -- or -- ...!sharkey!itivax!scs
         "Hey...you *can* get here from here!"