Peter Maydell <pmaydell(_at_)chiark(_dot_)greenend(_dot_)org(_dot_)uk> wrote:
Robert Elz wrote:
I'm not sure this is a great idea.
I'm not quite that negative about it, but...
Fairly trivially, as documented in the proposed manual update, it
implies that
echo 1 2 3 4 5 | scan -
would be the same as
scan 1 2 3 4 5
but that isn't what the implementation does.
...I do think that this isn't a good idea.
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 be
better if all programs accepting multiple messages allowed you to specify
'-' to read from standard input -- why should 'scan' in particular be
special?
I concur.
(Extra bonus UI question: if we make scan process messages in the order
stated rather than always sorted order, what should 'scan sequencename'
do if the sequence as defined in the .mh_sequences file isn't in order?)
Do sequences say anything about maintaining the order?
Thanks (谢谢).
Jeff
--
Jeffrey C. Honig <jch(_at_)honig(_dot_)net>
http://www.honig.net/jch
GnuPG ID:14E29E13 <http://www.honig.net/jch/key.shtml>
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers