[2017-07-09 15:43 +0200] Philipp Takacs <phil...@bureaucracy.de> > [2017-07-08 15:15] markus schnalke <mei...@marmaro.de> > > Currently, however, I rather see the situation this way: Pick(1) > > sets sequences, just like mark(1) but by conditions. Listing the > > results (`pick -list') and showing them (scan/pick merge) are > > structurally rather special tasks, which we provide for > > convenience. > > > > Well, maybe we should first get the relations between mark(1), > > pick(1), and scan(1) clear. As I think about then, I realize > > that don't have them as clear as I thought I would. > > I see the situation a bit diffrent: Pick is like find, to search > messages. The merge of scan/pick is adding a ``-form'' switch to > pick and realising scan is now obsulet. I wouldn't have sugested > the ``-form'' swtich for pick, if there wasn't the benifit of > removing the hole scan tool. > > The situation with pick and mark is a bit diffrent. Mark is the > main tool to handle sequences and pick has one of its feature > implemented. I don't see a clean way to merge these two tools.
Outsider's 2c: Granted i don't use sequences beyond 'u', my mental picture is about the same - pick(1) is for selecting messages, mark(1) - for working sequences. The -seq option with pick(1) came off as a shortcut for doing `mark $(pick ...) -seq ...`.
