>I was pondering a reply to his email. I'm glad there exists a way >(and will take advantage of it while shaking things out), but as a >general rule I'd like whatever mechanisms I'm using to be robust >and expected to continue to work in the reasonable future... so >yeah a more generic/known lasting mechanism would be nice.
One of my vague plans that I mentioned a while ago was to give mhlist the ability to take an mh-format(5) program and give it access to information from the message. But I haven't gotten around to implementing it ... maybe in the future. >What I use now is "mark -list -sequence unseen", which returns compressed >lists of messages (i.e. "1-5,7-8" instead of "1 2 3 4 5 7 8"). Parsing >this to intersect it with my pick output is relatively fast, though it >is of course ineligant compared to getting *just* the list you want. It >is also surprisingly slow (like 1/7th of a second to get this vs. other >MH programs which run 10x or more faster). I don't really understand why >it is so slow, since it is a near character-for-character copy of the >one line that the .mh_sequences file has in it. If it wasn't so very >slow compared to the other MH programs, I probably would not have even >brought it up for now. You know, I just took a look at it; it should not be slow, actually, unless you're running into things like lock contention for the sequence file. It does the same things every other MH program does (it calls folder_read()) but then it does very little after that. Could you do a system call trace and try to figure out what's taking so long? --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
