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

[norm]

Joel Uckelman <address@hidden> writes:
>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.

I do that almost every day.

    Norman Shapiro