Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing
Hi Ken,
So ... what would break if the newline _wasn't_ counted? I am leaning
towards going the wcwidth() route and simply not counting things like
that as printable. I will note that isprint('\n') returns 0.
There's been many detours along the way so I could be confused, but I
think including it means formatting that attempts to fill the rest of
the terminal's line stops one short of the end, thus not triggering the
terminal's automatic right margin, assuming it has `am' or `sam'
terminfo capability. You can see the difference by turning them off.
$ printf '%*dfoo\n' `tput cols` 42
42
foo
$ tput rmam; printf '%*dfoo\n' `tput cols` 42; tput smam
4o
$
How aware of the terminal are output routines?
Cheers, Ralph.
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] I need to learn more about MIME
Ken Hornstein k...@pobox.com writes: We have a set of links here: = http://www.nongnu.org/nmh/rfc.html - There is a pretty good example of a more complicated message in RFC 2049, Appendix A. Shouln't http://www.nongnu.org/nmh/rfc.html include RFC 2049, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2049 ? Norman Shapiro ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing
I see that, too. I'm not as concerned with the case of using the full terminal width. I think that we're more likely to break scripts that do something like this: if [ `scan -format $format -width 20` = $expected_output ] if we add one back to width now. We've already broken that with multibyte character handling; personally, I'd be fine with relaxing that requirement as well. --Ken ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] I need to learn more about MIME
http://www.nongnu.org/nmh/rfc.html - There is a pretty good example of a more complicated message in RFC 2049, Appendix A. Shouln't http://www.nongnu.org/nmh/rfc.html include RFC 2049, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2049 ? I don't know who started that list, but I've been adding stuff to that based on what I use during nmh development. I hadn't needed to use RFC 2049, so that's why I didn't add it. But it probably makes sense to add it at some point. --Ken ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing
Ken wrote: [David:] I see that, too. I'm not as concerned with the case of using the full terminal width. I think that we're more likely to break scripts that do something like this: if [ `scan -format $format -width 20` = $expected_output ] if we add one back to width now. We've already broken that with multibyte character handling; personally, I'd be fine with relaxing that requirement as well. Does anyone object? At this point, the fix just removes one line of code. David ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
