Ralph wrote: > David Levine wrote: > > Paul F. wrote: > > > (one way to reduce the likelihood of this, and of the original > > > overflow issue, might be to pass the message arguments to rmmproc in > > > the same form that they were received by refile. currently "refile > > > all" causes a call to rmmproc with a full enumeration of message > > > numbers. if "refile all" instead caused "rmmproc all", on the > > > assumption that the same expansion would result, then the original > > > invocation of refile would be as likely to fail as rmmproc. there > > > are probably subtleties to this i'm not getting right now.) > > > > I think this should work. rmmproc could call "pick <args>" to get the > > same expansion. > > It seems a bad idea to me. It's just punting the expansion problem > further downstream. A plain `pick <args>' would take my ~/.mh_profile > into account and my `lp', last picked, sequence would get trampled. > rmmproc's task is to deal with the files, that should be its interface.
Good point. It would also break existing rmmproc's. I saw your rmmprocopt later, that seems like the best solution. David _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
