ralph wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> > i've recreated your test case, and the '-limit 0' test still gives
> > reverse date sort:
> > $ s
> > 1 Thu, 03 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 A
> > 2 Thu, 02 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 A
> > 3 Thu, 02 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 C
> > 4 Thu, 01 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 B
> > 5 Thu, 01 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 A
> > $ sortm -textf subject -limit 0
> > $ s
> > 1 Thu, 03 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 A
> > 2 Thu, 02 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 A
> > 3 Thu, 01 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 A
> > 4 Thu, 01 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 B
> > 5 Thu, 02 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 C
> >
> > so that's odd.
>
> I see the "A"s maintained their original relative positions. What if
> you swap messages 2 and 5 to start with? Do you then get 0{3,1,2} Oct?
indeed, i do:
$ s
1 Thu, 03 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 A
2 Thu, 01 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 A
3 Thu, 02 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 C
4 Thu, 01 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 B
5 Thu, 02 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 A
$ sortm -textf subject -limit 0
$ s
1 Thu, 03 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 A
2 Thu, 01 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 A
3 Thu, 02 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 A
4 Thu, 01 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 B
5 Thu, 02 Oct 2012 00:12:00 +0000 C
so that might suggest that sortm doesn't like the format of the
date fields, except that plain "sortm" works just fine.
paul
>
> Cheers, Ralph.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nmh-workers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
=---------------------
paul fox, [email protected] (arlington, ma, where it's 45.9 degrees)
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
