I think this would be a great idea. How much (volunteer!) time
is being wasted chasing down memory leaks? If we have the
resources to do so, of course ....
(Of course, it's easy for me to say, "Go for it!" I still
haven't found time to contribute even a regression test. B-)
Bob
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:27:04 +0000 Ralph Corderoy <ralph@inputplus.co.uk> sez:
Hi Paul,
i just don't know whether MH can attract new users through a rewrite.
That wouldn't be the aim. The aim would be for the existing users to
have a code base that allowed more rapid, stable development of new
features, deprecating old warts, and improving consistency.
For example, whilst I like the Unix idiom of one command to do one thing
well, I do find myself doing a series of picks, marks, and scans to
whittle down emails whereas having a consistent, planned, notation that
can be used wherever a message number can be given would lessen the
iterations a lot. `seq=-3' is nice, but I can't do `seq:-3:2', for
example. And overall it's warty, so warty no one replied to my
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2017-09/msg00014.html
:-)
--
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy
--
Nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
--
Nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers