On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 01:20:37AM +0200, Mikko H�nninen wrote:
> David DeSimone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 10 Nov 1999:
> > This could be argued quite a bit, I imagine. Suppose your X server blew
> > up, and took all your windows with it? Mutt cannot tell the difference
> > between that condition, and closing the xterm with the [X] button. In
> > both cases, the xterm disappears from around Mutt, and it has no idea
> > why. In this case, Mutt errs on the side of caution, because it doesn't
> > want to lose information, unless it's sure that you are really quitting.
>
> What's different in the X server blowing up, why shouldn't Mutt exit
> gracefully in that situation?
>
> I agree that there should be caution taken in this situation, but I'm
> not sure if exiting without saving anything is the right choice. And
> another point is that someone closing the xterm intentionally is a much
> more common event than the X server crashing (I would hope!), even if
> that doesn't mean the latter should be ignored as a possibility.
>
> I wonder how feasible it would be to add some sort of option for this?
> Or a configure option possibly?
>
yep. i agree with that. mutt is already the highest configurable email
client i know and i am very happy with it. So one extra option won't
hurt anyone i think. :-)))
For now i will add ":set quit=yes" to my muttrc cause i always know that
if i press q i want to quit :-)
jan
