ken wrote:
> >Once again I've been bitten by a lone `sortm' defaulting to `all' when I
> >intended to do `sortm lp'. On a folder of some 20,000 emails that quite
> >perturbs incremental backups! `rmm' doesn't default to `all' so I'm not
> >sure sortm should; it's too destructive as the old order may not be
> >reproducible.
>
> Hm. I guess to me "sortm" defaulting to "all" makes sense; I mean,
> don't you want to that the vast majority of the time? (I'm guessing
> "lp" is a sequence you created?). And I guess I always figured the
> order of messages was ephemeral; that's why sortm exists, after
> all.
>
> But I can't claim to be the arbiter of how people use nmh; what do others
> think?
i almost never sort an entire folder -- usually i just sort the unseen
sequence, or some other small batch of messages.
rather than changing the default behavior by default, how about adding
an option to change the default behavior. :-)
sortm -noall
would error out if no other args are given. clearly this would be most
useful as profile entry.
paul
=---------------------
paul fox, [email protected] (arlington, ma, where it's 52.0 degrees)
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
