Ken wrote:
It seems reasonable to want to be able to invoke nmh commands from
rmmproc, although that was never clearly defined as reasonable (or
even if it was expected to work).
I think this man page note indicates that it was considered
reasonable, though hazardous without some minimal care:
rmmproc must NOT call refile or rmm without specifying -normmproc,
or you will create an infinite loop.
And the -normmproc switch was added specifically to support that.
Possibilites that come to mind are:
- Update the sequence file _before_ calling rmmproc(). This would
happen in the folder_delmsgs() routine. This technically involves
an API change, but the nmh API has no real definition and only two
callers, so I'm not really worried about that part.
I vote for that.
- Do nothing. Not as weird as it sounds; if messages aren't on the
sequence, they'll get removed next time the sequence file is written.
Yes but an intervening folder -pack would mess that up.
- Reread the sequence file after deleting the messages but before
writing it out; possibly challenging because the messages will be
gone, but they should be removed anyway.
What's the advantage of this over door #1 (update before calling
rmmproc)? If it just to minimize API/code changes, I don't
think that's enough.
- Set an environment variable to indicate that subprocesses
shouldn't open or modify the sequence file.
I'm not fond of environment variables. While they can be
useful to modify the behavior of rmmproc, etc., I don't
think that's the right thing to do here.
David
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers