* On 03 Aug 2010, Grant Edwards wrote: > > > > Strictly speaking, no: since mutt requires the -a option to be last, > > a '--' terminating the list of arguments to -a implicitly terminates > > the option list as well. I think this may have been part of the design > > consideration. > > IMO, requiring that unrelated options be present in a certain order is also > a bad idea.
What we have wouldn't have been my solution, but this solution got there first with a patch. Unless there's a patch implementing something else and a problem statement or use case to justify changing the interface (again), I think this is a solved problem from the maintenance point of view. :) We three agree that we don't *like* this syntax, but is anything operationally broken about it -- can any commonplace operation not be accomplished, or does it require a bizarre workaround? Nothing like that has been demonstrated. -- -D. d...@uchicago.edu IT Services University of Chicago
