I meant to say "-n1" below. On Aug 19, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Chris Garrigues wrote:
It occurs to me that aside from efficiency issues, that "| xargs -n scan" currently does the same thing as "|scan -" does with the patch.On Aug 19, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Michael O'Dell wrote:sorry - i was very unclear in my comment my point was that... if the commands are going to take text from stdin for the purpose of emulating "command line behavior", then the parsing must indeed emulate SHELL parsing lest it create a massive violation of The Law of Least Amazement (KRE can forgive the spelling as required - grin) so how does the following not do what is desired? echo 1 2 3 4 5 | xargs scan if so, in the original spirit of MH, exactly what needs fixing? -mo Michael O'Dell wrote:uh, "whitespace between message numbers" is parsed by the SHELL not the MH commands. the commands never see whitespace unless it's quoted -mo Eric Gillespie wrote:Peter Maydell writes:Is there any reason why it shouldn't allow any random whitespace betweenmessage numbers?Room for future expansion? Folders with spaces in names? I'm just used to thinking of newline-delimited rows, I guess. I'm slightly against allowing spaces, but only slightly. I guess if I implement folder changing later, we could say not to put message numbers after folders; anything between + and newline is the folder name.That it already does. The question is what it does (or should do) if youPeter Maydell writes: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 beI, too, would rather 'scan 3 4' print the lines in that order (first 3, then 4).say 'scan 4 3'.Oops, of course I meant 'scan 4 3'. Obviously 'scan 3 4' couldn't possibly print the messages in any order but 3, 4 :).Just for consistency (and because you'd probably want to implement itby having common code for doing this).I'll take a whack at it, as long as it doesn't mean refactoring too much old, painful code.less at least seems happy withstdin being /dev/null, as does my editor, so I think that argument isa red herring.Huh, OK. Bad assumption on my part.Sounds good. (I couldn't remember whether nmh wrote sequences in sorted order.)Near as I can tell, it never deals with message numbers in anything but sorted order, by the very nature of the structure it uses for them.line not being sorted either). [I appreciate that doing things thisway would be a fairly big change, though.]We'll see. I'll start with show; do you have any other commands in mind? I'm just not feeling foo | refile; I don't see any way it's better than refile `foo`, unlike scan and show, where you want to see immediate output. Thanks._______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers_______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers_______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
_______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Previous by Date: | Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin, Chris Garrigues |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin, Paul Fox |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin, Chris Garrigues |
Next by Thread: | Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin, Paul Fox |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |