Jerry Peek writes:
I haven't checked the nmh code, Perry. But now that Richard has fixed
sequences to expand dynamically, could you use sequences instead?
Sure, I *could* do that....
If you can't use sequences, you might write a little Perl script that
And I *could* do that. In fact, I *have* been working around the
problem, generally by using for loops in sh, or by using xargs.
But the point is, I think, that there is no actual *cause* for having
the number of arguments the programs take be statically allocated, and
it frequently causes trouble. Why don't we just eliminate the problem?
Perry