On 1/16/06, Juliusz Chroboczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > * 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).
It looks like you might be right. I was checking various emails I came across and they used In-Reply-To. But reading this page[1] seems to suggest that we are better off using References. I suppose I'll change the option name to --references as well. For the record, I tested both In-Reply-To and References in mutt and both seemed to work. I also tested it with gmail, but gmail seems to do whatever the hell it wants with the message. Or at least, the subject seems to take precedence over any header information when it comes to threading. > > 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.) I do think it may be a good idea to consolidate the header arguments. And that does help keep the parameter list from getting too big. But then we still have the potential problem of having a bunch of Maybe arguments that have to be checked. So I think that perhaps consolidating the header arguments but keeping the optional parameters as a list is the best solution. But I'd be happy to hear any counter arguments :P > 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? There are some small differences but they quite possibly only exist because someone changed one and not the other. Either way, it does appear that they can be consolidated. [1] http://www.jwz.org/doc/threading.html -- Zachary P. Landau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
