[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Quiting mhshow(1) Early Doesn't Set Current Message.
From: |
Ralph Corderoy |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Quiting mhshow(1) Early Doesn't Set Current Message. |
Date: |
Mon, 21 May 2012 22:47:03 +0100 |
Hi David,
> show(1) doesn't quite do the right thing either. Quitting before the
> last message of many has a different but equally disturbing effect:
> the current message is set to the last selected message, even though
> it was never shown.
I'd forgotten that, but have been bitten.
> Does anyone disagree that we want this behavior instead, from the
> show(1) man page, for both mhshow and show?
>
> The last message shown will become the current message.
No, I think show's current behaviour is correct. Besides, if it's just
printing them end-to-end on stdout then it can't know how far through
that stream my eyeballs have got in less(1) what with pipe buffering.
If I do `show 42-314' then it's nice, even if I bail, to know `show
next:271' repeatedly does another chunk that doesn't overlap.
> And just to note that the other commands that set the current message
> and can take multiple messages behave differently. Some set the first
> message of many to the current message, while others set the last. I
> don't think that we want to change them at this point
Agreed, but the inconsistency smells? Anyone have a reason why show's
behaviour can't be the desired target long-term?
Cheers, Ralph.