On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:06:54 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote: > On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:47:38 +0000, David Edmondson <dme@dme.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:07:02 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote: > > > Sorry to be so late on this, but I'm not a big fan of this new feature. > > > I would prefer to always see the subject (or any other field for that > > > matter) as is. > > > > The Emacs UI always replaced blank subjects with '[No Subject]' in > > buffer names. The printing code also needed something other than a blank > > subject for buffer renaming. > > I don't much care what the buffer name is. That seems to be a > completely different issue to me. I agree that they could be treated differently. With blank subjects the printing code generated an error (because `rename-buffer' doesn't like an empty string as the first argument), so _some_ change is required. > > Updating `notmuch-prettify-subject' to use a user configurable string > > (that can be set to the empty string) sounds like a good idea. Please > > ensure that the various other bits of code that require something other > > than a blank subject still work properly. > > I am actually perfectly happy to see this patch reverted. Whatever bremner decides.