Re: [Nmh-workers] The invisible mail folder

[Harald Geyer]

> > This is even a more general bug: Try "refile +inbox/11111; scan +inbox"
> > for example. I think subfolders are a feature, numeric folder names
> > probably are not. (Allowing them would rise quite some questions
> > about the semantics of sequences and so on ...)
> 
> The problem is not in the sequence, but in what scan (et al.) does
> when it encounters a numeric directory entry that it can't read. At
> the moment it dies a horrible death and can't scan past that point.

I still think that numeric folder names rise questions: Consider the
above example. cur = inbox/11100. What should "refile next:22 +foo" do?
Move the numeric folder? Leave a copy with the name ",11111" around?
(Note that you can't have hardlinks to directories on the filesystems
I know.)

If we decide, that nmh tools should explicitely ignore any non-regular
files, could this be done by a change in one central place? As far as
I know the source I doubt it.

> I think it would make much more sense for the nmh commands to be
> fault tolerant rather than restrict what can be done with folder-creating
> commands, since there are so many other ways for nasty directory entries
> to be created (i.e. by non-nmh commands).

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here:
Yes, I entirely agree that nmh commands should be as fault tolerant 
as possible. The way how scan behaves on unopenable files is a good
example I think. (Though I personally would prefer if the error
messages fit better into the output format.)

No, I don't want to restrict the folder-creating commands in any way.
When I say that numeric folder names should not be a feature, I only
mean that it shouldn't be encouraged and when they break something
somewhere then nobody should be surprised.

I actually like tools that allow me to shoot into both my feets
simultaneously.

Regards,
Harald