Re: Numbering invisible parts

[Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>]

Shenghuo ZHU <zsh@cs.rochester.edu> writes:

> >>>>> "HN" == Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> HN> Another reason why not numbering hidden buttons would be useful:
> HN> In the usual case, there is only one attachment in a message; with
> HN> my proposed change, you could simply press `b' to activate it.  As
> HN> things are now, you have to press `2 b', or `3 b', or...
> 
> Right. Why not make life easier?

Thanks; this is cool, although it breaks the usual
"no-argument-means-1" assumption with cooked numerical prefixes.

However, it only partially fixes my problem, because I would like `1
b' (or just b) to work on the first button I see, `2 b' on the second,
etc.

Maybe numbering invisible parts should be an option?  I never want to
number invisible parts, while Kai always wants to number them.  Sounds
like we need an option to settle our differences.  :-)