>> > * Add support to make_email for optional headers
>> Why? (Not complaining, I just want to make sure people actually need
>> a feature before committing it.
> I added it because I was looking for a way to add in a In-Reply-To
> header.
Okay, that's a fairly reasonable need (although if you're trying to
get threading to work, you'll probably find that References is what
you want to add).
Now that I agree with the principle, it's time to pick nits.
> If people prefer that we give in-reply-to its own parameter, I won't
> fight it, but I worry about huge parameter lists and a bunch of
> if-thens.
Quite the opposite. An alternative implementation would be to pass
the extra headers to sendEmail and sendEmailDoc, and consolidate all
the header arguments (From, To, Subject, Cc) into a single argument.
(I'm quite willing to commit the current patch if you're happier with
that.)
By the way, while I'm looking at this code, why do we need both
sendEmail and sendEmailDoc? sendEmail appears to only be used in
Apply, where it is not performance-critical, so could'nt we define
sendEmail ... s = sendEmailDoc ... (text s)
and be done with it?
Juliusz
_______________________________________________
darcs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
