[mew-int 00626] Re: <DEL> behaviour

[Werner LEMBERG]

> What I found was:
>
> (defvar mew-mark-afterstep-spec
>   `((,mew-mark-review 0 0 0 0 0 0 0)
>     (,mew-mark-multi  0 0 0 0 0 0 0)
>     (,mew-mark-delete 2 0 2 0 0 0 0)
>     (,mew-mark-unlink 2 0 2 0 0 0 0)
>     (,mew-mark-refile 2 0 2 0 0 0 0))
>
> So I presume:
>
>   42, 64, 68, 88, 111
>
> correspond to:
>
>   mew-mark-{review,multi,delete,unlink,refile}

I draw the same conclusion, but I was pretending to be a dumb
user :-)  Is it possible to redefine mew-mark-afterstep-spec so that
the symbols `mew-mark-review' etc. are visible with C-h v?

> How about something along the lines of:
>
>   *A list of cursor actions after marking.
>
>   Each cursor action is a list of eight elements.  The initial element
>   represents a mark type, while the remaining seven elements represent
>   post-marking cursor movement instructions for various situations.
>
>   The mark types are:
>
>     `mew-mark-review'
>     `mew-mark-multi'
>     `mew-mark-delete'
>     `mew-mark-unlink'
>     `mew-mark-refile'
>
>   The seven situations are:
>
>     1. No marks.
>
>     2. The new mark is equal to the old mark.
>
>     3. The level of the new mark is greater than that of the old
>        one.

Here a definition of `level' is missing.

>     4. The old and new marks have the same level, the old mark has
>        state, and the old mark has been overridden.

A definition of `state' should also be given.


    Werner