On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:50:53 +0200, Tomi Ollila <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:20:31 -0400, David Bremner <email@example.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:07:27 +0100, Pieter Praet <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:58:32 -0400, David Bremner <email@example.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 11:13:41 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > > How about if '*' applies to all messages (as it currently does), > > > but 'C-u *' only to open messages? That would make more sense IMHO. > > > > > > But, conforming to your original request, I've implemented the inverse. > > > > > > > Thanks for implementing that. I could live with either way. Do other > > people have opinions on this? My reasoning is if you descend into a > > thread from some search page, it seems likely that you want to operate > > on the messages matching the search. > > I've pretty soon lost the original open/close status as I often navigate > through messages by opening/closing messages, so for me not operating > on all messages in thread is magic behaviour. In case I'd use C-u * > I first have to check through the full thread what are the actual > messages currently open (lots of screen scrolling :( ) > I share your sentiment. Also, the function is called `notmuch-show-tag-all', so having it operate only on open messages would be counterintuitive IMO. In other words, I think of the prefix arg as being a modifier for the meaning of 'all'. But either way, it's fairly trivial to invert its behavior . > So, I prefer '*' operating on all messages in a thread and C-u '*' > for all open messages in a thread. > > > > > d > > Tomi Peace -- Pieter  id:"email@example.com"