Hi Paul,
> kevin wrote:
> > I have two use cases for sortm
> >
> > 1. sortm +folder
> > 2. sortm -textfield subject -limit 0 +folder
>
> does that actually work for you?
I think so. Initial conditions:
$ type sortm
sortm is hashed (/usr/bin/mh/sortm)
$ g -w sortm ~/.mh_profile
$
$ s() { scan -forma '%(msg) %{date} %{subject}'; }
$ s
1 Thu, 03 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 A
2 Thu, 02 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 A
3 Thu, 02 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 C
4 Thu, 01 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 B
5 Thu, 01 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 A
$
I restore the folder to the above state before each sortm below.
$ sortm
$ s
1 Thu, 01 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 B
2 Thu, 01 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 A
3 Thu, 02 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 A
4 Thu, 02 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 C
5 Thu, 03 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 A
$
This has sorted by date order, identical dates appear to have preserved
the original relative order of subject, e.g. 4->1, 5->2. Is sortm
defined as a stable sort all other things being equal, or does that
defer to something like the platform's qsort(3)?
$ sortm -textf subject
$ s
1 Thu, 01 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 B
2 Thu, 01 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 A
3 Thu, 02 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 A
4 Thu, 03 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 A
5 Thu, 02 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 C
$
Date then subject, with all `A's coming together as -nolimit is the
default, as sortm(1) says.
$ sortm -textf subject -limit 0
$ s
1 Thu, 01 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 A
2 Thu, 02 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 A
3 Thu, 03 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 A
4 Thu, 01 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 B
5 Thu, 02 Oct 2012 12:00:00 +0000 C
$
Subject then date, the one in question. Looks good to me. Ubuntu nmh
1.3-1.
Cheers, Ralph.
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
