>So, the result of all of this is that I'm forming a model which suggests >maybe I should ask if we could have ... I'm not sure what to call it ... >a "-nocheck" switch which would not need to check the folder nor >update any sequences, and would be allowed to simply fail if you tried >to use a relative or sequence-based message ID.
I was kind of hoping that my earlier message explained that this is not easy. It would actually be a major change that would touch every nmh program, as it would require some fundamental changes to the current API. It's not impossible but it would require a lot of work. It's not work I am personally interested in doing; like I said, if someone ELSE wants to tackle it, I say more power to them! And we will likely make the improvements we discussed to pick. But, I think Paul Fox has the right answer: simply use the -file argument to things like mhlist. "show" ends up calling mhl, which also just takes a filename (or it calls mhshow, but that also takes a filename). You won't be able to get around a folder scan when using mark, unfortunately, but I would be willing to add an option to make an "exploded" list (one that wasn't condensed into ranges). --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
