>> Do people like the idea of:
>>
>> - A dedicated function %(localmbox)
>>
>> - A pseudo component %{localmbox}
>
>I prefer the dedicated function. As far as I can tell, we don't have any
>other pseudo components. It would seem counter-intuitive. If we really
>need to call proper on the result, would it not be possible to somehow
>allow proper to be more flexible in the form of its argument.Actually, there _is_ at least one pseudo component; repl supports a "user" pseudo component. AFAICT, this is not documented anywhere, nor am I sure that it is used. But I understand what you mean; it's a bit weird. Well, many things use the "text" pseudo-component, but that's sort of a special case. We could maybe make %(proper) take an expr; I'd have to look at it. Might be better to have a function turn a string into a mailbox. >> - Extra primitives to build the default local mailbox (%(myname), >> %(myhost)). > >Well I never like the use of `my' in these things because it sounds >cheesy. I'd prefer functions names that make it clear exactly what they >will produce: are those just username and hostname. Apart from that, >it seems like a good idea because it is more general and the functions >may turn out to have other uses you hadn't foreseen. Someone might for >example, select a From address based on the hostname using the match >function. Okay, I think that I'm going to go with the primitives (actually, I did that last night). As for the cheesiness of the names ... well, I went with the flow of existing names. "username" is a bit ambiguous ... does that mean "kenh" or "Ken Hornstein"? It's easy enough to change those names if people can come up with something better. And it worked out I didn't need to create any format instructions, which was a relief. --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
