Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.mail.pine > #3144

Re: 2 small annoyances, maybe possible future features?

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025, Eduardo Chappa wrote:

> the same happens with error messages. alpine makes sure that you see error 
> messages, and it enforces those 3 seconds by locking the program and not 
> letting you do anything else. that is what you are experiencing.

Just to expand a bit on this, in case anyone else ever reads this in the
future...

After a bit of grepping around the source I found the following on line 121 in
the file status.c:

     /*
      * By convention, we have min_time equal to zero in messages which we
      * think are not as important, so-called comfort messages. We have
      * min_time >= 3 for messages which we think the user should see for
      * sure. Some users don't like to wait so we've provided a way for them
      * to live on the edge.
      *    status_msg_delay == -1  => min time == MIN(0, min_time)
      *    status_msg_delay == -2  => min time == MIN(1, min_time)
      *    status_msg_delay == -3  => min time == MIN(2, min_time)
      *    ...
      */
     if(ps_global->status_msg_delay < 0)
       min_time = MIN(-1 - ps_global->status_msg_delay, min_time);

so to me, the "operation" seems simple. I just modify the file like this:

      */
     ps_global->status_msg_delay = -2; // My addition.
     if(ps_global->status_msg_delay < 0)
       min_time = MIN(-1 - ps_global->status_msg_delay, min_time);

After a recompile, any error messages will be seen for 1 second instead of 3.
0.5 seconds I do not think is possible, since it is probably an int, but I think
lowering from 3 to 1 seconds will scratch my itch, and should it not, I can
always set it to -1 to remove the error message altogether.

Only one question remains. Is it possible to set this value as a setting or in a
file somewhere so I do not have to recompile to change? Asking "the code" I
think the answer is no.

Back to comp.mail.pine | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

2 small annoyances, maybe possible future features? D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-13 16:34 +0100
  Re: 2 small annoyances, maybe possible future features? Eduardo Chappa <chappa@washington.edu> - 2025-01-13 21:57 -0700
    Re: 2 small annoyances, maybe possible future features? D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-14 19:20 +0100
    Re: 2 small annoyances, maybe possible future features? D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-14 22:57 +0100
      Re: 2 small annoyances, maybe possible future features? Eduardo Chappa <chappa@washington.edu> - 2025-01-14 20:15 -0700
        Re: 2 small annoyances, maybe possible future features? D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-15 09:54 +0100

csiph-web