Re: use script output as regex pattern in folder-fook
Am 2008-07-25 11:46:10, schrieb David Champion: and generate your real muttrc programmatically: another way to do things like macros/variables and search paths, and you also get to automatically define hooks, lists, etc. based on the contents of your filesystem. But once again this only executes at startup -- it doesn't update itself continuously. If you're ambitious enough you could set mutt up to reload much of its configuration every time you change folders, or something. But I'm not sure how useful this really is for most people. :) I have already done this, which mean, on my IBM TP570 (P2/366/192MB) mutt need arround 2 minutes to load, but then it hast the total power... Maybe it is pervers, but it just works... Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
use script output as regex pattern in folder-fook
Hi I have a folder-hook acting on different folders: folder-hook folder1|folder2|folder3 ... I replaced this with folder-hook script.sh| ... and script.sh : echo 'folder1|folder2|folder3' Now, the pattern matches every folder, i.e. the hook acts on all folders, not just folder1,2,3. Is there a way do actually see what Mutt gets if it executes script.sh (there's nothing in .muttdebug0)? Or doesn't the script get executed at all. steve
Re: use script output as regex pattern in folder-fook
On 25 Jul 2008 14:06 +0200, by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve S): I replaced this with folder-hook script.sh| ... and script.sh : echo 'folder1|folder2|folder3' Maybe what you want is more along the lines of folder-hook `script.sh` ... -- Michael Kjörling .. [EMAIL PROTECTED] .. http://michael.kjorling.se * . No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings . * * ENCRYPTED email preferred -- OpenPGP key ID: 0x 758F8749 BDE9ADA6 * * ASCII Ribbon Campaign: Against HTML mail, proprietary attachments * signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: use script output as regex pattern in folder-fook
On Jul 25 12:44, Michael Kjorling wrote: On 25 Jul 2008 14:06 +0200, by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve S): I replaced this with folder-hook script.sh| ... and script.sh : echo 'folder1|folder2|folder3' Maybe what you want is more along the lines of folder-hook `script.sh` ... Yes, that was my initial attempt. It works if I use folder-hook `/path/to/script.sh` ... I have tried set my_muttdir=$HOME/.mutt folder-hook `$my_muttdir/script.sh` ... Here, Mutt doesn't seem to expand $my_muttdir before handing the command over to the shell. Is there a trick to do that? steve
Re: use script output as regex pattern in folder-fook
folder-hook folder1|folder2|folder3 ... I replaced this with folder-hook script.sh| ... This approach won't work. Here's why, and a possible alternative. The script.sh| notation for incorporating a script's output into your muttrc only works where mutt knows that it's looking for a filename or a format string. Otherwise, script.sh| is just a literal string. In your case, it's a regular expression listing a set of either-or patterns, and one of these patterns is an empty string, which matches everything since all strings contain an empty string as a subset. As Michael said, you can use `script.sh` instead. This should work equally well for most purposes. The only difference is that script.sh|, when it works, executes the script each time that the value is evaluated. `script.sh` executes the script only once, at the time that the muttrc is processed. This makes script.sh| really useful only when used for set variables that are evaluated multiple times. Hooks are evaluated only once anyway, so it wouldn't really be meaningful. If you really need the same kind of dynamic meaning that script.sh| provides over `script.sh`, you might be able to use a compound folder-hook -- something like this: folder-hook . 'folder-hook \`script.sh\` command...' or perhaps: # all other folder-hooks in folder-hooks.mutt folder-hook . 'source folder-hooks.mutt' These are untested, but its intention is that for each folder change, mutt will interpret folder-hook `script.sh` command... again. I'm not sure that the second folder-hook would actually be applied to the new (now current) folder, though. It might be necessary to reopen the folder to make the new folder-hook stick, and that's so unusable as to make the whole approach worthless. -- -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago
Re: use script output as regex pattern in folder-fook
On Jul 25 08:15, David Champion wrote: folder-hook folder1|folder2|folder3 ... I replaced this with folder-hook script.sh| ... This approach won't work. Here's why, and a possible alternative. The script.sh| notation for incorporating a script's output into your muttrc only works where mutt knows that it's looking for a filename or a format string. Otherwise, script.sh| is just a literal string. In your case, it's a regular expression listing a set of either-or patterns, and one of these patterns is an empty string, which matches everything since all strings contain an empty string as a subset. As Michael said, you can use `script.sh` instead. This should work equally well for most purposes. The only difference is that script.sh|, when it works, executes the script each time that the value is evaluated. `script.sh` executes the script only once, at the time that the muttrc is processed. This makes script.sh| really useful only when used for set variables that are evaluated multiple times. Hooks are evaluated only once anyway, so it wouldn't really be meaningful. Thanks for the clarification. I use script.sh| in various set ... commands, so I naively figured I could use it in a folder-hook too. As I stated in the reply to Michael's message, I'd be happy if something like set $my_path=/some/path folder-hook `$my_path/script.sh` ... would be possible. If you really need the same kind of dynamic meaning that script.sh| provides over `script.sh` [...] No, not really. I substituted one for the other so I didn't even know there was some dynamic to use :) steve
Re: use script output as regex pattern in folder-fook
Hi, * Steve S wrote: I have tried set my_muttdir=$HOME/.mutt folder-hook `$my_muttdir/script.sh` ... Here, Mutt doesn't seem to expand $my_muttdir before handing the command over to the shell. Is there a trick to do that? It doesn't seem so. At least for interactive shell-escape function it's documented that these variables aren't expanded... and I assume the same is true for backtick expansion. Rocco
Re: use script output as regex pattern in folder-fook
On Jul 25 17:32, Rocco Rutte wrote: Hi, * Steve S wrote: I have tried set my_muttdir=$HOME/.mutt folder-hook `$my_muttdir/script.sh` ... Here, Mutt doesn't seem to expand $my_muttdir before handing the command over to the shell. Is there a trick to do that? It doesn't seem so. At least for interactive shell-escape function it's documented that these variables aren't expanded... and I assume the same is true for backtick expansion. OK, then I'll set an env var MUTTDIR and do folder-hook `$MUTTDIR/script.sh` ... A more elegant solution could be a config var $configdir or $scriptdir for people who - have more then one script laying around in ~/.mutt (or wherever) - don't want to put Mutt-specific scripts in a location on $PATH My 0.02 $. steve
Re: use script output as regex pattern in folder-fook
On Jul 25 10:36, David Champion wrote: set my_muttdir=$HOME/.mutt folder-hook `$my_muttdir/script.sh` ... Here, Mutt doesn't seem to expand $my_muttdir before handing the command over to the shell. Is there a trick to do that? It doesn't seem so. At least for interactive shell-escape function it's documented that these variables aren't expanded... and I assume the same is true for backtick expansion. You can work around this by putting MUTTDIR in your shell environment before running mutt. sh$ export MUTTDIR=~/.mutt with folder-hook `$MUTTDIR/script.sh` Hmm, how do you read my mind? :) steve
Re: use script output as regex pattern in folder-fook
You can work around this by putting MUTTDIR in your shell environment before running mutt. Hmm, how do you read my mind? :) :) Well, I actually do this for a few variables -- predating the $my_xyz feature. I should switch where I can though, so I can drop the setenv patch. (Lets me stuff things into the environment from inside mutt.) A more elegant solution could be a config var $configdir or $scriptdir for people who - have more then one script laying around in ~/.mutt (or wherever) - don't want to put Mutt-specific scripts in a location on $PATH You also can do this in ~/.muttrc: source ~/.mutt/muttrc.py| and generate your real muttrc programmatically: another way to do things like macros/variables and search paths, and you also get to automatically define hooks, lists, etc. based on the contents of your filesystem. But once again this only executes at startup -- it doesn't update itself continuously. If you're ambitious enough you could set mutt up to reload much of its configuration every time you change folders, or something. But I'm not sure how useful this really is for most people. :) -- -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago
Re: use script output as regex pattern in folder-fook
On Jul 25 11:46, David Champion wrote: A more elegant solution could be a config var $configdir or $scriptdir for people who - have more then one script laying around in ~/.mutt (or wherever) - don't want to put Mutt-specific scripts in a location on $PATH You also can do this in ~/.muttrc: source ~/.mutt/muttrc.py| and generate your real muttrc programmatically: another way to do things like macros/variables and search paths, and you also get to automatically define hooks, lists, etc. based on the contents of your filesystem. But once again this only executes at startup -- it doesn't update itself continuously. If you're ambitious enough you could set mutt up to reload much of its configuration every time you change folders, or something. But I'm not sure how useful this really is for most people. :) Wow, one could write a research paper on Mutt configuration :) The number of my scripts and vars is greater than one but so far still manageable by hand and some backtick-magic here and there. Thanks! steve
