[2022-02-11 18:25] David Levine <levin...@acm.org> > Philipp wrote: > > As a _m_mh user I don't have the -convertargs switch. > > You submitted a patch to nmh. I'm not sure what mmh has to do with > any of this. Are you asking for an nmh enhancement to support mmh?
No, I try to explain why thinks looks diffrent to me, but you akt like you don't want to listen. I'm full aware I have submitted a patch to nmh. I think some of your users can benefit from it. With every mail from you I regent it more. I though there will be some discussion, but not this empty defence of an complex feature in order to reject my patch. So back to topic. You asked me if it's possible to improve my patch by using the convertargs and convert interface: No because it is an alternativ solution to convertargs. Your example of how this could be done doesn't even get the idea of my patch. So you might go back and look again what my patch does before complaining about it. If you have complaines or problems with my patch explain them proper. If you just claim there are other problems, I will asume you have somehow brok your setup. But stick to stuff which is introduced by my patch, not bugs which are there since forever and you just currently don't see because you don't use the default config. If you still like convertargs, stick with it. I couldn't care less. But then go away and let other users have this feature if they want to. > I would rather do that then add new code to nmh that doesn't seem > like a complete solution. You say: A complex copy of the mhshow interface is good to keep, but a small patch with calls mhshow out of repl is bad. The users should better add all the code to there config. Or did I missunderstand you? Philipp