Eric Gillespie wrote:
All done. I've been waiting for comment on the crawl_folders
patch, but maybe there just isn't yet sufficient motive to
consider such a patch. So, here's the latest, including new.c
and update crawl_folders.
I finally got round to looking at this, as promised.
I guess I'm happy for it to be checked in, modulo the
comments below.
- changing the command names (what should they be called?)
I'm fine with this, but unsure of new names. Are fnext/fprev
really better? 'new' may be a worse offender than 'fn' or 'fp'
anyway. I threw out prefixing them all with 'mh' (mhnew), but
saw no comment on that.
Don't think anybody came up with anything much better. I would
go with "new", "fnext" and "fprev", because the space of two
letter command names is very small and I don't think we should
be adding things to it.
(I'm not a fan of the 'mh' prefixes in general.)
- not using system(3) in unseen, or dropping unseen altogether
I have a stack of other things I want to do first, but afterwards
I may take a look at this. I never use the unseen command, so
just don't care about this one much. I'd be fine with dropping
it until someone refactors scan.
You might as well leave the code with system() in there;
there's a TODO comment to remind us about it.
- man page (I'll write it if this goes in, and it will document
folders -fast -recur > `mhpath +`/.folders)
I'm willing to do this if the new commands are accepted.
I do definitely want the documentation, yes.
-- PMM
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers