Re: [nmh-workers] Handling empty components

[Bob Carragher]

Thanks guys for the quick reply and suggestions!

Ken:  yeah, I can see how messy that's going to be; alas that
%(trim) indeed doesn't return its result.  Although I'll probably
see this again, it'd be maybe 1x/year for the next couple years.
(And, who knows, maybe their IT department will fix it?  B-)  Not
worth complicating my replcomps; easier to just manually add the
"To:" field in vim.  B-)

Thanks!

                                Bob

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 07:01:47 -0400 David Levine <address@hidden> sez:

> Ralph wrote:
> 
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > > Is there a concise way to specify "if X is not present or is just
> > > white space?" in one's replcomps?
> >
> > I'd look into applying function `trim' first;  see mh-format(5).
> 
> If this command is of any use, I started to use it to explore that but
> ran out of time:
> 
>   fmttest -format '%<{reply-to}%|%<{from}%>%>%(void(width))%(putaddr To: )\n'
> 
> A msg or -file switch can be added.
> 
> David
> 
> -- 
> nmh-workers
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers



On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 00:02:47 -0400 Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> sez:

> >Is there a concise way to specify "if X is not present or is just
> >white space?" in one's replcomps?
>
> We covered this ground a few years ago, here:
>
>   http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2015-02/msg00139.html
>
> Priescently, I said back then:
>
> >Mind you, a header consisting of nothing but white space will be read
> >as "true" in the sense of mh-format(5) tests
>
> And just to be sure:
>
> % fmttest -raw -format '%<(nonnull{text})Non-null%|Null%>' ''
> Null
> % fmttest -raw -format '%<(nonnull{text})Non-null%|Null%>' ' '
> Non-null
>
> But I see:
>
> % fmttest -raw -format '%(trim{text})%<(nonnull)Non-null%|Null%>' ' '
> Null
>
> So Ralph was right, %(trim) does what you want.  But ... %(trim) does
> not have a return value (that was probably a mistake), so you cannot use
> it directly as a condition for %<. You'll have to make sure your first
> test is against the str register rather than Reply-To, and making it work
> for all components is actually going to be a bit messy.
>
> You know, since this the first one you've encountered in 30 years, maybe
> it is better just to let it go?
>
> --Ken