On Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 17:07:55 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: > > Yes, that's correct; the processing for nnn-done@ doesn't do Control: > > processing. > > People often think that it does, don't notice that it doesn't and then > bugs don't get updated properly. I have seen this a number of times. > > Personally I think it happens often enough that it would be worth > making it work in nnn-done@ messages also, to avoid this problem.
The main reason why it's not supported is because of the effort required to handle nnn-done@ in scripts/process rather than a principled objection to it. [My main goal was to support Control: at submit@ time where it's critical; support of nnn@ was an added benefit.] -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com No matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white. -- Sir Karl Popper _Logic of Scientific Discovery_
