[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] New new/fn/fp/unseen program

From: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] New new/fn/fp/unseen program
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:57:02 +0100

Eric Gillespie wrote:
>All done.  I've been waiting for comment on the crawl_folders
>patch, but maybe there just isn't yet sufficient motive to
>consider such a patch.  So, here's the latest, including new.c
>and update crawl_folders.

I finally got round to looking at this, as promised.
I guess I'm happy for it to be checked in, modulo the
comments below.

>> - changing the command names (what should they be called?)
>I'm fine with this, but unsure of new names.  Are fnext/fprev
>really better?  'new' may be a worse offender than 'fn' or 'fp'
>anyway.  I threw out prefixing them all with 'mh' (mhnew), but
>saw no comment on that.

Don't think anybody came up with anything much better. I would
go with "new", "fnext" and "fprev", because the space of two
letter command names is very small and I don't think we should
be adding things to it.

(I'm not a fan of the 'mh' prefixes in general.)

>> - not using system(3) in unseen, or dropping unseen altogether
>I have a stack of other things I want to do first, but afterwards
>I may take a look at this.  I never use the unseen command, so
>just don't care about this one much.  I'd be fine with dropping
>it until someone refactors scan.

You might as well leave the code with system() in there;
there's a TODO comment to remind us about it.

>> - man page (I'll write it if this goes in, and it will document
>>   folders -fast -recur > `mhpath +`/.folders)
>I'm willing to do this if the new commands are accepted.

I do definitely want the documentation, yes.

-- PMM

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]