The .mh_sequences file is read directly by some MUAs. That's likely wrong and
they should use shell commands to get at the data. But I don't think we should
violate their expectations at this late date.
Negative sequences is a better design. But if we put it in it has to be a .mh_
profile option, defaulting to off.
On September 27, 2016 7:49:13 PM GMT+02:00, William Hay
<wish(_at_)dumain(_dot_)com> wrote:
Thus spake Ken Hornstein:
I'd like to be able to distinguish between seen and unseen messages
without
requiring the MDA to update the .mh_sequence file. If the sequence
was a list
of messages that were read rather than unread then only the
interactive
mh commands would need to muck with it thereby avoiding a need for
the MDA
to lock the .mh_sequence file.
I think in practice too much code depends right now on the current
sematics
of the unseen sequence.
Which is why I suggested implemenation by checking for the sequence
negation prefix
when using the unseen sequence. The semantics remain the same although
the implementation
differs. Adding to the unseen sequence is translated to removing from
the seen sequence which would(at least potentially) be a no-op for new
messages.
Also, what's the big deal with locking the sequence file, anyway? I
think
we've got that all straightened out.
You may have but not every mda even attempts to update the sequence.
William
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers