Re: [Nmh-workers] mh-format multiply function

[norm]

David Levine <address@hidden> writes:
>Norm wrote:
>
>> Ken writes:
>>
>> >Secondly, when a mh-format program is run, it _cannot_ fail; literally,
>> >there's no facility for it to fail. When it gets compiled, yes, that can
>> >fail. But return an error code? We don't really have a good way in
>> >mh-format to deal with this. I think it might be too much.
>>
>> I would be content to just ignore the exit status.
>
>I don't think that's a good idea.

If it's not too much trouble for you, I'd like to understand why this is so.

>I just committed the multiply function. It was trivial.

It might make a good M.S. history thesis to find out why it wasn't there
already.

>
>My feeling about mh-format is that we shouldn't invest much more effort in
>it. If there's a need for more capability, it should be tossed in favor
>something else, ideally something that already exists.

That makes sense. I don't remember the history of mh-format, if I ever did
know it. But I imagine that it grew incrementally, like Topsy and that nobody
ever designed or wever would design what we have today.

> But I share Ken's "Why bother?" at this point.