Re: [Nmh-workers] sortm's Default of all is Brain-Damaged.

[Joel Uckelman]

Thus spake Ken Hornstein:
> >Once again I've been bitten by a lone `sortm' defaulting to `all' when I
> >intended to do `sortm lp'.  On a folder of some 20,000 emails that quite
> >perturbs incremental backups!  `rmm' doesn't default to `all' so I'm not
> >sure sortm should;  it's too destructive as the old order may not be
> >reproducible.
> 
> Hm.  I guess to me "sortm" defaulting to "all" makes sense; I mean,
> don't you want to that the vast majority of the time?  (I'm guessing
> "lp" is a sequence you created?).  And I guess I always figured the
> order of messages was ephemeral; that's why sortm exists, after
> all.
> 
> But I can't claim to be the arbiter of how people use nmh; what do others
> think?

Speaking for myself only: I can't recall a single time in 15 years of
using nmh that I've wanted to use sortm to sort less than a complete
folder.
 
-- 
J.
-- 
J.