Hi Ken,
It offends me aesthetically though: that's a ton of wasted work.
Reading the directories is completely unnecessary.
Understood, and I think you've convinced me. I was just unhappy about
the duplicated code to read sequence files.
A script that was using mark(1) was sluggish on a local-disk folder with
approx. 6,500 emails and many extra files after rmm, refile, etc.
Deleting those, or using the script on a directory with less inodes, was
a lot snappier.
I've also been caught out by mark's behaviour in the past, e.g.
$ ls -A
$ touch {1..5}
$ mark -s lp -a all
$ ls -A
1 2 3 4 5 .mh_sequences
$ cat .mh_sequences
lp: 1-5
$ rm 2
$ cat .mh_sequences
lp: 1-5
$ mark -s lp -d 4
$ cat .mh_sequences
lp: 1 3 5
$ ls -A
1 3 4 5 .mh_sequences
$
What if the `rm 2' was temporary with the script about to re-instate it
after deleting 4 from the sequence? I expected mark to just manipulate
the compressed sequences in .mh_sequences in the simple delete case.
Cheers, Ralph.
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers