Re: [Nmh-workers] Implementation question: function or component for local mailbox?

[Oliver Kiddle]

Ken Hornstein wrote:
> Do people like the idea of:
> 
> - A dedicated function %(localmbox)
> 
> - A pseudo component %{localmbox}

I prefer the dedicated function. As far as I can tell, we don't have any
other pseudo components. It would seem counter-intuitive. If we really
need to call proper on the result, would it not be possible to somehow
allow proper to be more flexible in the form of its argument.

> - Extra primitives to build the default local mailbox (%(myname), %(myhost)).

Well I never like the use of `my' in these things because it sounds
cheesy. I'd prefer functions names that make it clear exactly what they
will produce: are those just username and hostname. Apart from that,
it seems like a good idea because it is more general and the functions
may turn out to have other uses you hadn't foreseen. Someone might for
example, select a From address based on the hostname using the match
function.

Oliver