Hi David, > show(1) doesn't quite do the right thing either. Quitting before the > last message of many has a different but equally disturbing effect: > the current message is set to the last selected message, even though > it was never shown.
I'd forgotten that, but have been bitten. > Does anyone disagree that we want this behavior instead, from the > show(1) man page, for both mhshow and show? > > The last message shown will become the current message. No, I think show's current behaviour is correct. Besides, if it's just printing them end-to-end on stdout then it can't know how far through that stream my eyeballs have got in less(1) what with pipe buffering. If I do `show 42-314' then it's nice, even if I bail, to know `show next:271' repeatedly does another chunk that doesn't overlap. > And just to note that the other commands that set the current message > and can take multiple messages behave differently. Some set the first > message of many to the current message, while others set the last. I > don't think that we want to change them at this point Agreed, but the inconsistency smells? Anyone have a reason why show's behaviour can't be the desired target long-term? Cheers, Ralph. _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
