|
From: | Chris Garrigues |
Subject: | Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin |
Date: | Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:05:49 -0500 |
Chris On Aug 19, 2008, at 1:18 PM, Paul Fox wrote:
chris wrote:I meant to say "-n1" below.i wondered about that, but because i didn't understand why you meant "-n" at all. scan normally processes all of its args, so why present messages one at a time? paulOn Aug 19, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Chris Garrigues wrote:It occurs to me that aside from efficiency issues, that "| xargs -nscan" currently does the same thing as "|scan -" does with the patch.On Aug 19, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Michael O'Dell wrote:sorry - i was very unclear in my comment my point was that... if the commands are going to take text from stdin for the purpose of emulating "command line behavior", then the parsing must indeed emulate SHELL parsing lest it create a massive violation of The Law of Least Amazement (KRE can forgive the spelling as required - grin) so how does the following not do what is desired? echo 1 2 3 4 5 | xargs scan if so, in the original spirit of MH, exactly what needs fixing? -mo Michael O'Dell wrote:uh, "whitespace between message numbers" is parsed by the SHELL not the MH commands. the commands never see whitespace unless it's quoted -mo Eric Gillespie wrote:Peter Maydell writes:Is there any reason why it shouldn't allow any random whitespace between message numbers?Room for future expansion? Folders with spaces in names? I'm just used to thinking of newline-delimited rows, I guess. I'm slightly against allowing spaces, but only slightly. I guess if I implement folder changing later, we could say not to put message numbers after folders; anything between + and newline is the folder name.Peter Maydell writes:I think that it would be nice if 'scan 4 1 2' actually output the messages in the order stated on the command line. I also think that it would beI, too, would rather 'scan 3 4' print the lines in that order (first 3, then 4).That it already does. The question is what it does (or should do) if you say 'scan 4 3'.Oops, of course I meant 'scan 4 3'. Obviously 'scan 3 4' couldn't possibly print the messages in any order but 3, 4 :).Just for consistency (and because you'd probably want to implement it by having common code for doing this).I'll take a whack at it, as long as it doesn't mean refactoring too much old, painful code.less at least seems happy with stdin being /dev/null, as does my editor, so I think that argument is a red herring.Huh, OK. Bad assumption on my part.Sounds good. (I couldn't remember whether nmh wrote sequences in sorted order.)Near as I can tell, it never deals with message numbers in anything but sorted order, by the very nature of the structure it uses for them.line not being sorted either). [I appreciate that doing things this way would be a fairly big change, though.]We'll see. I'll start with show; do you have any other commands in mind? I'm just not feeling foo | refile; I don't see any way it's better than refile `foo`, unlike scan and show, where you want to see immediate output. Thanks._______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list address@hidden http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers_______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list address@hidden http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers_______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list address@hidden http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers_______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list address@hidden http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers=---------------------paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 66.6 degrees)_______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list address@hidden http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |