Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...)

[David Levine]

Norm wrote:

> % folder +/tmp/inbox
> /tmp/inbox+ has 20 messages  (1-75).
> % sortm
> sortm: can't parse date field in message 66, continuing...
> sortm: can't parse date field in message 67, continuing...
> sortm: can't parse date field in message 68, continuing...
> sortm: can't parse date field in message 70, continuing...
> sortm: can't parse date field in message 71, continuing...
> sortm: can't parse date field in message 72, continuing...
> 
> So I know, that messages 66-72 had a missing or badly
> formatted date field and that sortm plowed on anyway. But
> what happened to these messages. I would have guessed that
> they would be left in place. But that's wrong. In this
> instance, at least, they wound up at the end of
> +/tmp/inbox. Did the programmer know that? I don't
> know. But whatever he did know should have been passed on
> to me.
> 
> One dodge which might sometimes be useful, would be to put
> the details in the man page and have the
> continuing... message cite the man page.

In this case, the details are already in the man page:

  With the default of -nocheck, sortm sorts messages with a
  missing or invalid "Date:" field using their file
  modification times.

I think the warning message is OK, and I prefer brevity.
Or would you prefer:

  sortm: can't parse date field in message 66, see sortm(1) man page, 
continuing...

Or:

  sortm: can't parse date field in message 66, using file mod time, 
continuing...

Or?

David