Re: Anybody mind if I remove this piece of strange code?

2003-10-21 Thread Bill Wohler
Neil W Rickert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Jon Steinhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Oct 20, 2003:
 
  Problem is,
 the folder command doesn't work because there are no subdirectories in the
 mail directory, even though there are links to them.
 
 It is hard to imagine a Mail directory without at least one
 subdirectory (such as RCS).

Or +inbox.

;-)

-- 
Bill Wohler [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.newt.com/wohler/  GnuPG ID:610BD9AD
Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and MH-E. Vote Libertarian!
If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.



Re: Anybody mind if I remove this piece of strange code?

2003-10-20 Thread Robert Elz
Date:Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:06:08 -0700
From:Jon Steinhart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  | Anyone have a problem if I remove this test?

Yes.

It is that test that makes folder run in manageable time, without it,
every message in every folder has to be stat'd to see if it happens to
be a directory - with it, folders with no sub-folders (which almost all
folders with many messages count as) can simply be skipped.

kre



Re: Anybody mind if I remove this piece of strange code?

2003-10-20 Thread Anders Eriksson

[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 Anyone have a problem if I remove this test?
 Jon 


Not really. It might be worth to think about it twice though. I seem 
to recall reading in, was it the man mage for find(1)??, that this or 
a similar thing might speed up some types of directory structure 
traversals by quite a lot.

Maybe that's ancient visdom too...

/A





Re: Anybody mind if I remove this piece of strange code?

2003-10-20 Thread Neil W Rickert
Jon Steinhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Oct 20, 2003:

 Problem is,
the folder command doesn't work because there are no subdirectories in the
mail directory, even though there are links to them.

It is hard to imagine a Mail directory without at least one
subdirectory (such as RCS).

 -NWR




Re: Anybody mind if I remove this piece of strange code?

2003-10-20 Thread Jon Steinhart
Robert Elz writes:
   | Anyone have a problem if I remove this test?
 
 Yes.
 
 It is that test that makes folder run in manageable time, without it,
 every message in every folder has to be stat'd to see if it happens to
 be a directory - with it, folders with no sub-folders (which almost all
 folders with many messages count as) can simply be skipped.
 
 kre

How about if I change the test so that it is only ignored for the top
level directory?

Jon



Re: Anybody mind if I remove this piece of strange code?

2003-10-20 Thread Robert Elz
Date:Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:56:55 -0700
From:Jon Steinhart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  | How about if I change the test so that it is only ignored for the top
  | level directory?

That would do much less harm, but is unlikely to be so easy (that function
gets called for any level in the hierarchy, if I recall correctly).

An alternative would be a try really hard option (inverse of folder -fast)
that made it ignore the test.

But for your purposes, wouldn't just making a dummy sub-directory in your new
(symlinks only) Mail directory, until it gets a real folder sub-dir of its own
do just as well?

kre



Re: Anybody mind if I remove this piece of strange code?

2003-10-20 Thread Jon Steinhart
Robert Elz wrote:
   | How about if I change the test so that it is only ignored for the top
   | level directory?
 
 That would do much less harm, but is unlikely to be so easy (that function
 gets called for any level in the hierarchy, if I recall correctly).
 
 An alternative would be a try really hard option (inverse of folder -fast)
 that made it ignore the test.
 
 But for your purposes, wouldn't just making a dummy sub-directory in your new
 (symlinks only) Mail directory, until it gets a real folder sub-dir of its own
 do just as well?
 
 kre

OK, I give up.  I guess that this is a special case.  But I found it real
annoying to have to resort to the source code in order to find out why the
command mysteriously didn't work.  I think a warning on the manual page
would suffice.

Jon