On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:06:40PM -0600, Justin Gombos wrote:
* Dallman Ross <dman(_at_)nomotek(_dot_)com> [2004-07-28 15:39]:
Well, that's kind of screwy, frankly, and misapprehends some of the
implicit value of the approach I initially suggested to you.
I don't get what you're saying here. I believe my version will always
have the exact same result as yours. I felt that for simply
extracting the date, I did not want to have three or four seperate
recipes, so I encapsulated them into a single recipe.
[snip]
I think ultimately the most readable code for doing Date: extractions
is to use GNU date, which is likely what I will switch to in the end.
Well, first you say you wanted one hairy recipe; then you say you
want readability. Readability is far more important. That's why
I used three recipes. If you want, you can take the spaces out
from between them. Then they will look like one!
:0 # recipe 1
* conditions
{ ASSIGNMENT=$MATCH }
:0 E # recipe 2
* conditions
{ ASSIGNMENT=$MATCH }
:0 # recipe 3
* conditions
{ ASSIGNMENT=$MATCH }
(If I recall correctly, my middle recipe had an "else" flag; so I
put one in here.) You can even use funny indentation. I used to
do that:
:0 # recipe 1
* conditions
{ ASSIGNMENT=$MATCH }
:0 E # recipe 2
* conditions
{ ASSIGNMENT=$MATCH }
:0 # recipe 3
* conditions
{ ASSIGNMENT=$MATCH }
Or something. :-)
--
dman
____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail