[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing
From: |
Ralph Corderoy |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Aug 2014 14:03:20 +0100 |
Hi David,
> > The functionality sounds OK, though it needs to know `Foo' is
> > 2+1+1; there's no mention of wider-than-one runes above AFAICS.
>
> $ fmttest -outsize 2 -raw -format '%{text}' 'Fo'
>
> produces no output but
>
> $ fmttest -outsize 3 -raw -format '%{text}' 'Fo | od -x
> 0000000 bcef 0aa6
>
> does.
`F' being `ef bc a6' in UTF-8.
> Assuming the newline takes up one space, that is what we want, right?
Yes, I think so.
> > Also, is `width' the value of `tput cols' this time, or one less
> > again?
>
> Currently, it looks like -outsize counts the newline as one, like
> -width. If we don't want to change that, then we should call it
> something else.
That's what seems wrong. fmttest(1) says "characters with zero width...
are not counted against this total". Does linefeed, U+0A have zero
width?
Cheers, Ralph.
Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, David Levine, 2014/08/10
Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, David Levine, 2014/08/10
Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, David Levine, 2014/08/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing,
Ralph Corderoy <=
Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, David Levine, 2014/08/16
Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, David Levine, 2014/08/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Ken Hornstein, 2014/08/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Ralph Corderoy, 2014/08/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Ken Hornstein, 2014/08/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Ralph Corderoy, 2014/08/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Ken Hornstein, 2014/08/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Ralph Corderoy, 2014/08/26