Re: [Evolution] "Include threads:" setting for Search Folders?

[Patrick O'Callaghan <poc usb ve>]

On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 12:57 +0100, Milan Crha wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 10:57 +0000, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > The fact that you yourself have to guess how it works would seem to
> > indicate that it isn't actually specified anywhere.
>
>       Hi,
> I should find out by the code reading, but I've been lazy. :)
>
> On the other hand, once things are less intuitive (or not intuitive at
> all), then it either means they are complicated (not necessarily
> powerful) or they use incorrect/vague/... names or descriptions. I mean
> with that that I tried to guess only based on the names of the options,
> without code reading (which is something general users hardly do).
> Having good option names, thus they describe what they do easily, is a
> plus, though not every option can achieve it. From my point of view.

I agree. If the only solution is to read the code, there's something
wrong. I think in this case the problem is one of conception: it isn't
clear (or it isn't clear enough) what the behaviour should be. Unless
that's defined and described, there's no hope of getting it right.

poc