Re: [Nmh-workers] Request for new command: addresses

[David Levine]

Norm wrote:

> There are still a couple of minor problems:
> 
>       As I commented earlier, in this thread, there is nothing to prevent
>       some future version of repl using a different prompt. One way
>       to prevent that would be to put "Reply to:" in the man page.
>       I herewith request that.

How's this?

   The  -query switch modifies the action of -nocc type switch by interac‐
   tively asking you if each address that normally would be placed in  the
   “To:”  and  “cc:”  list should actually be sent a copy.  This is useful
   for special-purpose replies.  The prompt format is

        Reply to address?

   That prompt will not change, so that scripts can rely on it.  Note that
   the  position  of  the  -cc and -nocc switches, like all other switches
   which take a positive and negative form, is important.

("address" in the prompt is italicized.)  I also added a comment
to the code.  It's just on master:  if OK, I don't see a reason
not to add this to 1.6.

>       repl returns a non-zero exit code because of the the "-editor false"
>       arguments , as well as to actual errors, such as an
>       unreadable message. The script blissfully ignores the latter.
>       I don't think that problem is worth pursuing.

It would be really easy to have repl exit with status of 2
instead of 1 for the "-editor false" case or any other failure
of the editor.  But if we're going to touch that, I think that
we should consider passing back the exit status from the editor
(or attempt to invoke the editor, so return 127 if not found).
editfile() currently maps any failure to a status of -2,
starting at line 734 in uip/whatnowsbr.c.  Its callers map that
to 1.  (buildfile() maps it to -1 but its caller ignores the
return value.)

David