The .mh_sequences file is read directly by some MUAs. That's likely wrong and
they should use shell commands to get at the data. But I don't think we should
violate their expectations at this late date.
Negative sequences is a better design. But if we put it in it has to be a .mh_
profile option, defaulting to off.
On September 27, 2016 7:49:13 PM GMT+02:00, William Hay <[email protected]> wrote:
>Thus spake Ken Hornstein:
>> >I'd like to be able to distinguish between seen and unseen messages
>without
>> >requiring the MDA to update the .mh_sequence file. If the sequence
>was a list
>> >of messages that were read rather than unread then only the
>interactive
>> >mh commands would need to muck with it thereby avoiding a need for
>the MDA
>> >to lock the .mh_sequence file.
>>
>> I think in practice too much code depends right now on the current
>sematics
>> of the unseen sequence.
>
>Which is why I suggested implemenation by checking for the sequence
>negation prefix
>when using the unseen sequence. The semantics remain the same although
>the implementation
>differs. Adding to the unseen sequence is translated to removing from
>the seen sequence which would(at least potentially) be a no-op for new
>messages.
>
>>
>> Also, what's the big deal with locking the sequence file, anyway? I
>think
>> we've got that all straightened out.
>
>You may have but not every mda even attempts to update the sequence.
>
>William
>
>_______________________________________________
>Nmh-workers mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
