[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin
From: |
Eric Gillespie |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin |
Date: |
Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:53:20 -0700 |
Peter Maydell writes:
> Robert Elz wrote:
> >I'm not sure this is a great idea.
>
> I'm not quite that negative about it, but...
>
> >Fairly trivially, as documented in the proposed manual update, it
> >implies that
> >
> > echo 1 2 3 4 5 | scan -
> >
> >would be the same as
> >
> > scan 1 2 3 4 5
Actually, it will throw an error. I've changed the man page to
clarify this:
If `-' is specified for
.RI msgs
.B scan
will read message numbers from the standard input and scan those. Each line
must have exactly one message number. Lines beginning with `+' are ignored.
So, you want
printf '%s\n' 1 2 3 4 5 | scan -
> >but that isn't what the implementation does.
>
> ...I do think that this isn't a good idea.
>
> I think that it would be nice if 'scan 4 1 2' actually output the messages
> in the order stated on the command line. I also think that it would be
I, too, would rather 'scan 3 4' print the lines in that order
(first 3, then 4). In any case, having scan - sort the messages
entirely defeats its purpose (scan as you go).
> better if all programs accepting multiple messages allowed you to specify
> '-' to read from standard input -- why should 'scan' in particular be
> special?
I suppose it shouldn't. Which other commands should take the -?
Not show or repl; editors and pagers are likely not going to
appreciate standard input being connected to an empty pipe.
refile I suppose. Hmm, 'foo | pick - | scan -' :)? Sure, why
not? Anything else?
> (Extra bonus UI question: if we make scan process messages in the order
> stated rather than always sorted order, what should 'scan sequencename'
> do if the sequence as defined in the .mh_sequences file isn't in order?)
I say it should scan messages in the order it finds them in
.mh_sequences, and mh itself should continue to write messages
into that file sorted. If any sequence is listed with messages
in some non-sorted order, the user must have put them that way
for a reason.
> So I guess I like the idea but not the implementation.
Hmm, you didn't say a word above about the implementation.
You voted (unless I misread you) for scan not sorting the
messages, so I guess that's not what you're against (and even if
you were, that's a design choice, not implementation). Can you
lay out your objections, so that I may address them in my patch,
or realize that the change is not going in?
--
Eric Gillespie <*> address@hidden
- [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin, Eric Gillespie, 2008/08/15
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin, Robert Elz, 2008/08/15
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin,
Eric Gillespie <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin, Peter Maydell, 2008/08/18
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin, Eric Gillespie, 2008/08/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin, Simon Burge, 2008/08/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin, Paul Fox, 2008/08/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin, Michael O'Dell, 2008/08/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin, Michael O'Dell, 2008/08/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin, Chris Garrigues, 2008/08/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin, Chris Garrigues, 2008/08/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin, Paul Fox, 2008/08/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] scan message numbers from stdin, Chris Garrigues, 2008/08/19