On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:25:34 +0100, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:45:01 -0800, Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:19:26 -0800, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> > You can use kill-buffer directly (C-X k); adding a new special binding
> > for that command seems unnecessary to me.
> 
> Well, that's "Control, X, K, Enter", so quite a bit harder than just
> 'x'. :-)

I'd forgotten about the 'q' binding, which used to be the same as 'x'
and is now different. Similar to how fdisk differentiates between
'q'uit without saving changes and 'w'rite table to disk and exit.

> But fine, I could move my convenience for "kill buffer" to just 'k'.

You've got 'q' already :-)

> I think I'd like to see a better mapping for "archive and kill buffer"
> to a key other than 'x'. Any ideas?

I'm up for almost anything; but I'd have to retrain my fingers to use it
instead of 'x' :-)

> 1. Before I go into "read a bunch of messages with spacebar" mode I
>    first arrange for filtered search results that I know I want to read
>    all together.

I generally do the same, but don't read mail in time sequence. One of
the reasons I like the threaded reading mode is that I don't *have* to
read mail in time sequence as I can review a thread and see the time
ordering of the messages within that.

> 2. When I archive a thread with 'a', I'm not necessarily always planning
>    to read the next message (just because notmuch is presenting it to
>    me). And if not, I'll just press 'x' right away.

Right, if you use the 'a' key to flip to a new message, you probably
don't want to use 'x' on the final (and still essentially ignored)
message.

>    Of course, for this I need an "archive all" binding that
>    doesn't exist yet. And I also really need to fix the Xapian bug so
>    that archiving 100 threads doesn't take *forever* like it does
>    currently.

yes, please! I'd even be willing to wait at this point...

--
keith.packard@intel.com