David Levine <[email protected]> writes: >Norm wrote: > >> Ken writes: >> >> >Secondly, when a mh-format program is run, it _cannot_ fail; literally, >> >there's no facility for it to fail. When it gets compiled, yes, that can >> >fail. But return an error code? We don't really have a good way in >> >mh-format to deal with this. I think it might be too much. >> >> I would be content to just ignore the exit status. > >I don't think that's a good idea.
If it's not too much trouble for you, I'd like to understand why this is so. >I just committed the multiply function. It was trivial. It might make a good M.S. history thesis to find out why it wasn't there already. > >My feeling about mh-format is that we shouldn't invest much more effort in >it. If there's a need for more capability, it should be tossed in favor >something else, ideally something that already exists. That makes sense. I don't remember the history of mh-format, if I ever did know it. But I imagine that it grew incrementally, like Topsy and that nobody ever designed or wever would design what we have today. > But I share Ken's "Why bother?" at this point. _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
