[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing
From: |
David Levine |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:20:29 -0400 |
Ken wrote:
> >[David:]
> >I see that, too. I'm not as concerned with the case of using the
> >full terminal width. I think that we're more likely to break
> >scripts that do something like this:
> >
> > if [ `scan -format $format -width 20` = $expected_output ]
> >
> >if we add one back to width now.
>
> We've already broken that with multibyte character handling; personally,
> I'd be fine with relaxing that requirement as well.
Does anyone object? At this point, the fix just removes one
line of code.
David
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, David Levine, 2014/08/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Ken Hornstein, 2014/08/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Ralph Corderoy, 2014/08/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Ken Hornstein, 2014/08/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Ralph Corderoy, 2014/08/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Ken Hornstein, 2014/08/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Ralph Corderoy, 2014/08/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Paul Fox, 2014/08/26
Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, David Levine, 2014/08/25
Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing,
David Levine <=