Norm wrote:
I observe that, ignoring all lines not beginning with exactly two ' '
characters, the outputs of nmh's commands' -help, seem to be extremely
regular and simple.
Yes, because they're generated from the switch definitions in the code
of each program.
I wonder if, for 1.7, that simple syntax and semantics could be guaranteed?
That way, it would be possible for *proc commands to be always uptodate.
I'm not sure how. For example, if a new switch is added, its mere
existence wouldn't be enough to let a *proc writer know whether or
how to use it. It might help if a switch is removed, but that's
happened how many times in the history of MH and nmh? And, the
*proc writer would likely have to do more than just notice that it
was removed.
This would probably require no code changes -- just a line or three in the
mh-profile man page.
But, it would add an interface that we would have to preserve.
I'm against doing that unless there's a benefit. In this case, I
don't think there is one. *proc's just aren't that well defined
(and I don't think this is a good place to start/continue), so the
writer sometimes has to know more than what's explicit in the
documentation already.
David
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers