[Nmh-workers] Quiting mhshow(1) Early Doesn't Set Current Message.

2012-05-21 Thread Ralph Corderoy 
Hi,

On an old nmh, so apologies if it's already fixed, doing `mhshow 42'
where 42 isn't the current message and then getting bored with the
needless emailed images and entering `q' at the `press to show content'
prompt seems to fail to make 42 the current message, as show(1) would,
even though $? is 0.  A follow-up `rmm' doesn't delete the intended
email.

Cheers, Ralph.

___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

Re: [Nmh-workers] Quiting mhshow(1) Early Doesn't Set Current Message.

2012-05-21 Thread Ralph Corderoy 
Hi David,

 show(1) doesn't quite do the right thing either.  Quitting before the
 last message of many has a different but equally disturbing effect:
 the current message is set to the last selected message, even though
 it was never shown.

I'd forgotten that, but have been bitten.

 Does anyone disagree that we want this behavior instead, from the
 show(1) man page, for both mhshow and show?
 
   The last message shown will become the current message.

No, I think show's current behaviour is correct.  Besides, if it's just
printing them end-to-end on stdout then it can't know how far through
that stream my eyeballs have got in less(1) what with pipe buffering.

If I do `show 42-314' then it's nice, even if I bail, to know `show
next:271' repeatedly does another chunk that doesn't overlap.

 And just to note that the other commands that set the current message
 and can take multiple messages behave differently.  Some set the first
 message of many to the current message, while others set the last.  I
 don't think that we want to change them at this point

Agreed, but the inconsistency smells?  Anyone have a reason why show's
behaviour can't be the desired target long-term?

Cheers, Ralph.

___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers