> > This is even a more general bug: Try "refile +inbox/11111; scan +inbox" > > for example. I think subfolders are a feature, numeric folder names > > probably are not. (Allowing them would rise quite some questions > > about the semantics of sequences and so on ...) > > The problem is not in the sequence, but in what scan (et al.) does > when it encounters a numeric directory entry that it can't read. At > the moment it dies a horrible death and can't scan past that point.
I still think that numeric folder names rise questions: Consider the above example. cur = inbox/11100. What should "refile next:22 +foo" do? Move the numeric folder? Leave a copy with the name ",11111" around? (Note that you can't have hardlinks to directories on the filesystems I know.) If we decide, that nmh tools should explicitely ignore any non-regular files, could this be done by a change in one central place? As far as I know the source I doubt it. > I think it would make much more sense for the nmh commands to be > fault tolerant rather than restrict what can be done with folder-creating > commands, since there are so many other ways for nasty directory entries > to be created (i.e. by non-nmh commands). Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here: Yes, I entirely agree that nmh commands should be as fault tolerant as possible. The way how scan behaves on unopenable files is a good example I think. (Though I personally would prefer if the error messages fit better into the output format.) No, I don't want to restrict the folder-creating commands in any way. When I say that numeric folder names should not be a feature, I only mean that it shouldn't be encouraged and when they break something somewhere then nobody should be surprised. I actually like tools that allow me to shoot into both my feets simultaneously. Regards, Harald _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
