Ken> You run command (a) which changes the context. How is command (b)
Ken> supposed to know that the context has been changed?
Given your mentioning of MHCONTEXT, I could envisage a wrapper for MH
commands much like Paul Fox's example — perhaps a context directory
containing per-shell-PID context files, and the crucial test would be
whether another context file was more recent than and different to this
shell's one when you take an action.
There's a problem there though, in that context only records your
current folder, with sequences being folder-local — so a sortm in one
shell could render a previous scan in another shell obsolete. Trying to
solve that by merging all sequences up into context would introduce
other difficulties: for example sortm would have to rewrite *all*
context+sequence records containing sequences affected by the sort. The
difficulty of tracking that probably renders Paul's approach ("Something
happened somewhere else — you're about to affect message(s) X — are you
sure?") safer.
I don't use other message stores, but it seems to me that maintaining a
map of MH unique IDs to another store could be quite closely related,
and perhaps Paul's approach would still apply: it's simple and safe,
although it could be inconvenient if "third party" changes couldn't be
tracked at a sufficiently fine granularity.
Conrad
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers