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

[Paul Fox]

ralph wrote:
 > Hi Paul,
 > 
 > > i've recreated your test case, and the '-limit 0' test still gives
 > > reverse date sort:
 > >     $ s
 > >     1  Thu, 03 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  A
 > >     2  Thu, 02 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  A
 > >     3  Thu, 02 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  C
 > >     4  Thu, 01 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  B
 > >     5  Thu, 01 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  A
 > >     $ sortm -textf subject -limit 0
 > >     $ s
 > >     1  Thu, 03 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  A
 > >     2  Thu, 02 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  A
 > >     3  Thu, 01 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  A
 > >     4  Thu, 01 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  B
 > >     5  Thu, 02 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  C
 > > 
 > > so that's odd.
 > 
 > I see the "A"s maintained their original relative positions.  What if
 > you swap messages 2 and 5 to start with?  Do you then get 0{3,1,2} Oct?

indeed, i do:

    $ s
    1  Thu, 03 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  A
    2  Thu, 01 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  A
    3  Thu, 02 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  C
    4  Thu, 01 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  B
    5  Thu, 02 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  A
    $ sortm -textf subject -limit 0
    $ s
    1  Thu, 03 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  A
    2  Thu, 01 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  A
    3  Thu, 02 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  A
    4  Thu, 01 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  B
    5  Thu, 02 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000  C

so that might suggest that sortm doesn't like the format of the
date fields, except that plain "sortm" works just fine.

paul

 > 
 > Cheers, Ralph.
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Nmh-workers mailing list
 > address@hidden
 > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

=---------------------
 paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 45.9 degrees)