Re: [Pan-users] interface bug (or not?)

[Jim Henderson]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 10:53:44 -0000 (UTC), Duncan wrote:

> Altho a 10,000 lines "smallish" is equally arbitrary.  Maybe it should
> be 12k, 15k, 20k?
> 
> Similarly for "mediumish".  20k seems a bit low for modern usage.  Maybe
> 25k, 30k or 50k?  Tho if it's not a still-image that pan can display
> probably auto-save-dialog is better anyway.
> 
> Personally I'd propose say 12k smallish, 25k mediumish.  I'd call that
> much more sensible in a modern context altho maybe still on the
> conservative side.  Anyone for say 20k and 50k, or even larger?
> 
> I oppose killing the tests entirely and would consider say 50k/100k
> arguably /too/ high, as I doubt most folks would be happy with pan
> unexpectedly and without a dialog downloading whole multi-gig DVD ISO
> sizes, say.
> 
> The other possibility would be adding smallish/mediumish sizes to
> options,
> presumably upping their defaults to at least my proposed 12k/25k in the
> process.  That arguably makes more sense than hard-coding it.  But while
> I can easily patch the hard-codes and could just as easily submit them
> for upstream inclusion after this discussion, options-coding is beyond
> my skill level so that sort of patch would need to be done by someone
> else.
> 
> Meanwhile, anyone want to argue for changes to the in-subject extensions
> test or the in-group-name pictures test?

I think "configurable", either globally or per-group, and the save dialog 
should have an option to just view the attachment inline as an option.

The behavior as it is is a little confusing, that opening it triggers the 
'save' dialog, but selecting it in the header pane and pressing 'enter' 
gives a different behavior (ie, showing the image inline).  It feels like 
pressing 'n' for the next message should have the same behavior as 
pressing 'enter' after manually selecting the message.

-- 
 Jim Henderson
 Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits