[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject)
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject) |
Date: |
Mon, 18 Aug 2014 22:23:32 -0400 |
>> It's obvious that was done because otherwise, you could never give a
>> consistent -part switch (it wouldn't make any sense if mhlist showed
>> a part number of 1, but in mhshow it was really 2).
>
>I don't follow, but that doesn't matter. It makes
>sense to me the way it is now, so I don't want it to
>change.
I guess my points are:
- Looking back at the actual implementation, it is clear (to me at least)
that the parts were reversed to make it simpler on the code that displayed
multipart/alternatives; it was easy enough to bail out when it found
the first one that was the "best" it could display. The fact that what
ended up being mhlist does the same was just an artifact of the
implementation (the reversing happens during MIME parsing).
- It doesn't make sense to me, since it's the opposite of the order of the
parts in the actual message (and this isn't, AFAICT, documented
anywhere ... well, okay, I see that you added that in 2013).
Everywhere else, the part numbering is based on actual order. I
suspect most people won't really care ... so far the number of people
who have noticed this is you, me, and Ralph. I know I said back then
that we should leave it as-is, but if we're redoing the MIME parser
and display code I think this wart should be fixed.
- I cannot say what other MUAs do; the only other one that I know that
exposes the order of multipart/alternative parts is exmh, and that
displays them in message order (and this is kind of confusing when
you're looking at the same message in two different MUAs).
--Ken
- Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject), David Levine, 2014/08/07
- Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject), David Levine, 2014/08/07
- Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject), David Levine, 2014/08/18
- Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject), David Levine, 2014/08/18
- Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject),
Ken Hornstein <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject), David Levine, 2014/08/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject), David Levine, 2014/08/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject), David Levine, 2014/08/20
- Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject), David Levine, 2014/08/20
- Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject), David Levine, 2014/08/20