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

[Ken Hornstein]

>> 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.

Actually, there _is_ at least one pseudo component; repl supports a
"user" pseudo component.  AFAICT, this is not documented anywhere, nor
am I sure that it is used.  But I understand what you mean; it's a bit
weird.  Well, many things use the "text" pseudo-component, but that's
sort of a special case.

We could maybe make %(proper) take an expr; I'd have to look at it.  Might
be better to have a function turn a string into a mailbox.

>> - 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.

Okay, I think that I'm going to go with the primitives (actually, I did
that last night).  As for the cheesiness of the names ... well, I went
with the flow of existing names.  "username" is a bit ambiguous ... does
that mean "kenh" or "Ken Hornstein"?  It's easy enough to change those
names if people can come up with something better.  And it worked out
I didn't need to create any format instructions, which was a relief.

--Ken