This is even a more general bug: Try "refile +inbox/11111; scan +inbox"
for example. I think subfolders are a feature, numeric folder names
probably are not. (Allowing them would rise quite some questions
about the semantics of sequences and so on ...)
The problem is not in the sequence, but in what scan (et al.) does
when it encounters a numeric directory entry that it can't read. At
the moment it dies a horrible death and can't scan past that point.
I still think that numeric folder names rise questions: Consider the
above example. cur = inbox/11100. What should "refile next:22 +foo" do?
Move the numeric folder? Leave a copy with the name ",11111" around?
(Note that you can't have hardlinks to directories on the filesystems
I know.)
If we decide, that nmh tools should explicitely ignore any non-regular
files, could this be done by a change in one central place? As far as
I know the source I doubt it.
I think it would make much more sense for the nmh commands to be
fault tolerant rather than restrict what can be done with folder-creating
commands, since there are so many other ways for nasty directory entries
to be created (i.e. by non-nmh commands).
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here:
Yes, I entirely agree that nmh commands should be as fault tolerant
as possible. The way how scan behaves on unopenable files is a good
example I think. (Though I personally would prefer if the error
messages fit better into the output format.)
No, I don't want to restrict the folder-creating commands in any way.
When I say that numeric folder names should not be a feature, I only
mean that it shouldn't be encouraged and when they break something
somewhere then nobody should be surprised.
I actually like tools that allow me to shoot into both my feets
simultaneously.
Regards,
Harald
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers