ken wrote:
Once again I've been bitten by a lone `sortm' defaulting to `all' when I
intended to do `sortm lp'. On a folder of some 20,000 emails that quite
perturbs incremental backups! `rmm' doesn't default to `all' so I'm not
sure sortm should; it's too destructive as the old order may not be
reproducible.
Hm. I guess to me "sortm" defaulting to "all" makes sense; I mean,
don't you want to that the vast majority of the time? (I'm guessing
"lp" is a sequence you created?). And I guess I always figured the
order of messages was ephemeral; that's why sortm exists, after
all.
But I can't claim to be the arbiter of how people use nmh; what do others
think?
i almost never sort an entire folder -- usually i just sort the unseen
sequence, or some other small batch of messages.
rather than changing the default behavior by default, how about adding
an option to change the default behavior. :-)
sortm -noall
would error out if no other args are given. clearly this would be most
useful as profile entry.
paul
=---------------------
paul fox, pgf(_at_)foxharp(_dot_)boston(_dot_)ma(_dot_)us (arlington, ma,
where it's 52.0 degrees)
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers