[2018-11-22 10:53] Philipp Takacs <phil...@bureaucracy.de>
> [2018-11-22 08:35] markus schnalke <mei...@marmaro.de>
> > [2018-11-19 03:41] Philipp Takacs <phil...@bureaucracy.de>
> > >
> > > After I have looked at the ali bug, I have looked at the other tests
> > > which are skipped. I have noticed the mhl with space feature is not this
> > > hard to port from nmh. So I have done this. A patch for this is attached.
> >
> > Seems to be very useful to have that feature. I've always been
> > dissatisfied with lines containing only "> " in my replies.
> >
> > Is there a need to update some files in etc/ to use the rtrim
> > function by default?
>
> I don't think so. The rtrim for lines with only "> " is done automatic.
> only the rtrim of contant have to be requested by the component settings.
Okay. Thanks for the clarification.
Oh man! How much I love to see the trailing whitespace of "> "
lines to be removed! :-D Really happy about that feature!
> > > Ps: the RFC 2231 support is on the todo list but not on top
> >
> > Okay.
>
> To my todo list: I have some features and patches I'll send the next
> days to the list.
I'm much looking forward to that! :-)
> > > diff --git a/uip/mhl.c b/uip/mhl.c
> > > index a84703b8..b0ba02ed 100644
> > > --- a/uip/mhl.c
> > > +++ b/uip/mhl.c
> >
> > > @@ -884,7 +887,10 @@ putcomp(struct mcomp *c1, struct mcomp *c2, int flag)
> >
> > > if (c1->c_flags & CLEARTEXT) {
> > > - putstr(c1->c_text);
> > > + putstr(c1->c_flags & RTRIM ? rtrim(c1->c_text) : c1->c_text);
> >
> > For those bit-check-plus-ternary-operator cases, parenthesis
> > around the bit check should be used to clarify the precedence. I'm
> > no fan of using too many parenthesis but in cases like this one,
> > I think they improve the readability. Thus:
> >
> > putstr((c1->c_flags & RTRIM) ? rtrim(c1->c_text) : c1->c_text);
> >
> > There are some more occurences of this pattern in the patch ...
>
> As I said this patch is only ported from the nmh code, but I can add
> parenthesis.
>
> > > @@ -970,16 +980,23 @@ putcomp(struct mcomp *c1, struct mcomp *c2, int
> > > flag)
> > > }
> > > count += c1->c_offset;
> > >
> > > - if ((cp = oneline(c2->c_text, c1->c_flags)))
> > > - putstr(cp);
> > > + if ((cp = oneline(c2->c_text, c1->c_flags))) {
> > > + putstr(c1->c_flags & RTRIM ? rtrim(cp) : cp);
> >
> > Here's an indent with spaces. (That's the mixed tabs and spaces
> > indent style of nmh. In mmh all indents should be tabs only.)
>
> I have also noticed this, but the indention is already in our code.
> I wanted to write a secound patch to fix the style. But I can include
> this in the patch as well.
I just wanted to point on stuff I noticed. It's fine if you you it
in a separate commit. I don't care how. Do as you think it fits
best.
meillo
