Tickets :: Comment on [#6825] OR-combination for flags

* Your Email Address
* Spam protection	Enter the letters below: .__ .__ . ,. ,.__ [__)[__) \./ \./ [__) \| \\| \| \| \| \
Comment	> Just read my earlier post again and think I should clarify the > relation between the different versions of search: > > > >> (and/or) and (and) < and/or < (and/or) and/or (and/or) >> < ?? > > > > The order I gave represents the usefulness (in my eyes!) of the > original search, Michael´s patched search, and my proposed search, > not their expressiveness. > > > > Michael´s patched version describes a set of searches not completely > covering the original, so no backward compatibility. However, it has > increased usability by exhibiting a better comprehensibility for the > users. > > > > The proposed version is a superset of both the original and the > Michael´s, so backward compatibility is given (once the save format > is handled), although it has a slightly more complex GUI. For me, it > is a good trade-off between expressiveness and usability. > > > > I vote for my version ;o)) But I would be happy with Michael´s > version as well, which is a clean approach seen in many mail clients. > I just tested current CVS and everything works well. > > > >>> Furthermore two little glitches in the current GUI: > >>> - In "recent searches", the flags are not mentioned. > >> This has been fixed as a result of the new code [..] > > > > Yes, fixed. Talking about enhancements, may I suggest to delete empty > search fields from this display (and storage): they are unnecessary > clustering the string with, e.g., "To for ´´ in INBOX", and new > searches have a lot of empty fields to offer quick access to the > different header fields. > > > > > > Martin
Attachment
Watch this ticket

Saved Queries