Norm wrote: > mh-format constitutes a real barrier to "All power to the user", for > all but the most sophisticated of users.
As long as everything works out of the box, I don't think that's a problem. At least not a problem that should be addressed by adding more options and code. I agree with Ken that providing more examples is the way to go. > The option would be -exec procedure_name, or if you like, -eval > procedure_name. If present, then procedure_name would be invoked for > each message. procedure_name's stdout would completely replace each > scan line. Why not pipe the output of scan/inc through a program that calls procedure_name? For mhshow, replace mhlproc and/or moreproc? > For each component, comp, of a message, it would define an > environment variable, NMH_FORMAT_comp, whose value was the content > of that component. That's a messy interface. Should NMH_FORMAT_Received, for example, contain some kind of flattened string array? And environment variables are case sensitive, so should that be NMH_FORMAT_Received, NMH_FORMAT_received, NMH_FORMAT_RECEIVED, or something else? I think this just trades one form of messiness for another. David _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
