Hi Ralph [2022-04-01 13:41] Ralph Corderoy <ra...@inputplus.co.uk> > > Ralph wrote: > > Ok I see this more the other way around, pick shoundn't write > > sequences, there is mark(1) for this. > > Yes, if pick always listed by default then it could skip the writing of > sequences by passing them as arguments to mark. But bear in mind the > limit on the number of arguments to a process and their total size in > characters, especially some decades ago.
The thing is some decades ago is some decades ago ;-) So is this limitation still relevant? And are there other solutions like let mark read from stdin or use xargs? > > To get these you can currently choose between "pick seq", > > Only with ‘-list’ which you may have as a default in your ~/.mh_profile. Just a litle nitpick: "-list" is the default if no sequence is given. > > > > If this would be added to pick, then scan would be obsolet. > > > > > > If all commands grew message-set expressions, like pick's, then pick > > > would be obsolete. ;-) mark(1) would do when the sequence only > > > needs modifying without display. > > > > Yes, but would it be reasable to add message-set expressions to all > > tools? As you pointed out they where removed some time ago. > > No, they weren't. I didn't point that out. They have only ever been > arguments to pick. Yes sorry I mixed this up a bit. I still don't think is reasonable to add message-set to all tools. > > With leads to the question: Why does pick only print out message > > numbers and not a mh-format(5). The obvious awnser is: Because there > > is scan for this. But you could also ask: Is scan (as an extra tool) > > required at all? A -form switch on pick would do the same with the > > same interface. > > You're missing the essence of what each command is intended to do. > > What is the one thing which currently make pick distinct from all the > other nmh commands? It is the ‘matcher’ arguments like ‘-subject’. > > With the Unix ‘do one thing well’ outlook, > > - pick's single purpose is to search emails with its ‘matcher’ > operators. The point where we disagree is what should pick do with the matched emails. > - scan's single purpose is a one-line summary of a message, perhaps just > the message number. > - show's single purpose is to display a message over multiple lines. > - mark's single purpose is to manipulate sequences with set-like > operations. > > I should break down what I want to do so I can cover the operations with > nmh's commands and then they compose. > > Moving the ‘matcher’ arguments from pick to all the other commands would > improve the UI and they'd be consistent in that ‘-subject’ could be > given to all of them. Then there would be no tool to match/search emails. Yes, with my suggestion there would be no tool to display a one-line summary. Also as said earlier this would require all tools to be able read and parse the mails. Yes this would be hidden in srb/, but still be there. So all tools would match and do there purpose. > Moving the ‘matcher’ arguments to just scan would > be a wart. Yes, I know you think of it as scan's one-line formatting > moving to pick, but it's the same thing looked at the wrong way around > simply because of how you see to implement it. I see it this way, because of the way I use it. Most of the time I use the matchers of pick, I search for the next mail to handle and therefor use a combination of scan and pick. I don't use sequences that much. > pick and scan overlap, but that's due to the error of adding -list to > pick and isn't a reason to merge the two. I still see the error in pick in the -sequence switch. This may was different at the time of implementing pick, but I look at it from a today's perspective. > Your suggestion is one interpretation and I don't think it's the best > one. Anointing your suggestion by making your change would further > muddle the two distinct operations of scan and pick. I think here we are at a point we can agree to disagree. Philipp