To me this sounds misleading. After all the whole point is not deleting
the message (right away)
+ case *types.Error:+ aerc.PushError(msg.Error.Error())+ case *types.Unsupported:+ // notmuch doesn't support it, we want the user to know+ aerc.PushError(" error, unsupported for this worker")+ }+ })++ //caution, can be nil+ next := findNextNonDeleted(uids, store)++ mv, isMsgView := h.msgProvider.(*widgets.MessageViewer)+ if isMsgView {+ if !aerc.Config().Ui.NextMessageOnDelete {+ aerc.RemoveTab(h.msgProvider)+ } else {+ // no more messages in the list+ if next == nil {+ aerc.RemoveTab(h.msgProvider)+ acct.Messages().Invalidate()+ return nil+ }+ lib.NewMessageStoreView(next, store, aerc.DecryptKeys,+ func(view lib.MessageView, err error) {+ if err != nil {+ aerc.PushError(err.Error())+ return+ }+ nextMv := widgets.NewMessageViewer(acct, aerc.Config(), view)+ aerc.ReplaceTab(mv, nextMv, next.Envelope.Subject)+ })+ }+ }+ acct.Messages().Invalidate()+ return nil+}
--
2.32.0
I don't think changing the default behaviour of `d` would be a good
idea. To be fair I have a hard time thinking of a more intuitive
binding. Maybe add the trash-behaviour as a comment.
+d = :trash<Enter>D = :delete<Enter>
A = :archive flat<Enter>
@@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ N = :prev-result<Enter>
[view]
q = :close<Enter>
| = :pipe<space>
+d = :trash<Enter>D = :delete<Enter>
S = :save<space>
A = :archive flat<Enter>
--
2.32.0