Re: [Nmh-workers] sortm's Default of all is Brain-Damaged.

[rader]

 > > >Once again I've been bitten by a lone `sortm' defaulting to `all' when I
 > > >intended to do `sortm lp'.  On a folder of some 20,000 emails that quite
 > > >perturbs incremental backups!  `rmm' doesn't default to `all' so I'm not
 > > >sure sortm should;  it's too destructive as the old order may not be
 > > >reproducible.
 > > 
 > > Hm.  I guess to me "sortm" defaulting to "all" makes sense; I mean,
 > > don't you want to that the vast majority of the time?  (I'm guessing
 > > "lp" is a sequence you created?).  And I guess I always figured the
 > > order of messages was ephemeral; that's why sortm exists, after
 > > all.
 > > 
 > > But I can't claim to be the arbiter of how people use nmh; what do others
 > > think?
 > 
 > Speaking for myself only: I can't recall a single time in 15 years of
 > using nmh that I've wanted to use sortm to sort less than a complete
 > folder.

Same here, except since '89.  Although, to be honest, I probably didn't use 
at all until about ten years ago. 

Seems like the real problem is that "sortm" shoulda been named "sortf".  But 
I assume that ship sailed a long time ago.

steve
--