check if message is in a particular sequence?
What's the fastest/easiest way to check if a particular message is a member of a particular sequence? I thought I'd be able to compare the message number against the output of "mark -list", but since sequences can be abbreviated with range notation, that gets complicated quickly. For example, message 6 is in the sequence todo, but it's hard to tell from this: $ mark -list -sequence todo todo: 1 3 5-8 13 16 46 49 52-53 paul =-- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 47.3 degrees)
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
>What's the fastest/easiest way to check if a particular message >is a member of a particular sequence? > >I thought I'd be able to compare the message number against the output >of "mark -list", but since sequences can be abbreviated with range >notation, that gets complicated quickly. For example, message 6 is in >the sequence todo, but it's hard to tell from this: You can get the expanded list of messages in a sequence by doing this: scan -format '%(msg)' sequence-name I think from there, it's easy. I do not know of a better way, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone came up with something better. --Ken
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:49:40 -0400 Ken Hornstein sez:
> >What's the fastest/easiest way to check if a particular message
> >is a member of a particular sequence?
> >
> >I thought I'd be able to compare the message number against the output
> >of "mark -list", but since sequences can be abbreviated with range
> >notation, that gets complicated quickly. For example, message 6 is in
> >the sequence todo, but it's hard to tell from this:
>
> You can get the expanded list of messages in a sequence by doing this:
>
> scan -format '%(msg)' sequence-name
>
> I think from there, it's easy. I do not know of a better way, but it
> wouldn't surprise me if someone came up with something better.
I don't know that it's better, but my first thought was awk(1) to
parse the mark(1mh) sequence and search for the message number in
there. It saves on filesystem access, but would suffer compared
with Ken's approach in that deleted messages would still be
reported -- which may or may not be what Paul wants. Also, I'm
making assumptions about mark(1mh)'s output format, which is
wholly unnecessary (and more brittle than) if you use scan(1mh).
Checking for message # 6:
$ echo 'todo: 1 3 5-8 13 16 46 49 52-53' | awk -v MY_MSG=6 -v RS=" "
'BEGIN{missing=1;} /^[0-9]+$/{if (MY_MSG==$0) {missing=0; print "in sequence
entry"}} /^[0-9]+-[0-9]+$/{split($0,ss,"-"); if (MY_MSG>=ss[1] &&
MY_MSG<=ss[2]) {missing=0; print "in sequence range"}} END{if (missing) print
"not in sequence"}'
in sequence range
Checking for message # 49:
$ echo 'todo: 1 3 5-8 13 16 46 49 52-53' | awk -v MY_MSG=49 -v RS=" "
'BEGIN{missing=1;} /^[0-9]+$/{if (MY_MSG==$0) {missing=0; print "in sequence
entry"}} /^[0-9]+-[0-9]+$/{split($0,ss,"-"); if (MY_MSG>=ss[1] &&
MY_MSG<=ss[2]) {missing=0; print "in sequence range"}} END{if (missing) print
"not in sequence"}'
in sequence entry
Checking for (out-of-sequence) message # 99:
$ echo 'todo: 1 3 5-8 13 16 46 49 52-53' | awk -v MY_MSG=99 -v RS=" "
'BEGIN{missing=1;} /^[0-9]+$/{if (MY_MSG==$0) {missing=0; print "in sequence
entry"}} /^[0-9]+-[0-9]+$/{split($0,ss,"-"); if (MY_MSG>=ss[1] &&
MY_MSG<=ss[2]) {missing=0; print "in sequence range"}} END{if (missing) print
"not in sequence"}'
not in sequence
Bob
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
ken wrote: > >What's the fastest/easiest way to check if a particular message > >is a member of a particular sequence? > > > >I thought I'd be able to compare the message number against the output > >of "mark -list", but since sequences can be abbreviated with range > >notation, that gets complicated quickly. For example, message 6 is in > >the sequence todo, but it's hard to tell from this: > > You can get the expanded list of messages in a sequence by doing this: > > scan -format '%(msg)' sequence-name > > I think from there, it's easy. I do not know of a better way, but it > wouldn't surprise me if someone came up with something better. Thanks. Seems... overkill... to have to fire up a parsing language, but it will definitely work. Bob's solution, falls in the same (mostly good :-) category. It also seems like mark(1) could do it. Currently it ignores its message args if -list is given. It could be enhanced so that if message args are given, then -list would only output sequence membership for the given args. ...time passes... I have a partial patch for mark which does what I described. Don't know whether it's worth it or not. paul =-- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 47.5 degrees)
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
>Thanks. Seems... overkill... to have to fire up a parsing language, >but it will definitely work. Remind me ... how many parsing languages get fired up for a random Unix command on a modern Unix system, today? :-) But, okay, that's not really fair. The mh-format language is, I think, pretty lightweight in terms of embeddable languages. Probably more problematic is I think scan(1) opens the message even though it doesn't need anything from it. >It also seems like mark(1) could do it. Currently it ignores its >message args if -list is given. It could be enhanced so that if >message args are given, then -list would only output sequence >membership for the given args. > >...time passes... > >I have a partial patch for mark which does what I described. Don't >know whether it's worth it or not. I think that would make sense to me; I cannot think of a reason why that wouldn't generally be useful. --Ken
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
ken wrote: > >Thanks. Seems... overkill... to have to fire up a parsing language, > >but it will definitely work. > > Remind me ... how many parsing languages get fired up for a random Unix > command on a modern Unix system, today? :-) Touché! > >It also seems like mark(1) could do it. Currently it ignores its > >message args if -list is given. It could be enhanced so that if > >message args are given, then -list would only output sequence > >membership for the given args. > > > >...time passes... > > > >I have a partial patch for mark which does what I described. Don't > >know whether it's worth it or not. > > I think that would make sense to me; I cannot think of a reason why that > wouldn't generally be useful. I have a patch, including man page and test script changes. The change is somewhat backward-INcompatible, in that previously, "mark -list" ignored any supplied "msgs". Now they make a difference. $ mark -list cur: 1 odd: 1 3 5 7 9 even: 2 4 6 8 10 $ mark -seq even -list even: 2 4 6 8 10 $ mark -seq even -list 2-6 even: 2 4 6 <-- previously output was "even: 2 4 6 8 10" $ mark -seq odd -list 2-6 odd: 3 5<-- previously output was "odd: 1 3 5 7 9" $ mark -list 2-6<-- previously behaved as "mark -list", above odd: 3 5 even: 2 4 6 $ mark -list 1-4<-- previously behaved as "mark -list", above cur: 1 odd: 1 3 even: 2 4 >From the new man page: The -list switch tells mark to list the messages associated with sequences specified by a -sequence switch, or with any sequences if no -sequence switch is present. If the sequence is private, this will be indicated. If msgs are specified, then only the sequence memberships for the given messages are shown, either for all sequences, or just for those named by -sequence switches. The -zero switch does not affect the operation of -list. Are we in any kind of waiting period for the next release? Any objections if I commit to master? paul =-- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 57.2 degrees)
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
Paul wrote: > I have a patch, including man page and test script changes. The > change is somewhat backward-INcompatible, in that previously, "mark > -list" ignored any supplied "msgs". Now they make a difference. That almost seems like a bug fix to me. Anyway, we're not frozen for the new release, so I think it would be fine to add it. David
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
Hi Paul, > Ken wrote: > > scan -format '%(msg)' sequence-name > > Thanks. Seems... overkill... to have to fire up a parsing language, Haven't heard fgrep(1) called that before. :-) $ scan -format '%(msg)' last:10 | fgrep -qx 42; echo $? 1 $ scan -format '%(msg)' last:10 | fgrep -qx 96910; echo $? 0 Ken points out each message is opened by scan(1) even though the read headers aren't used. I thought pick -list last:10 may avoid that, but it also opens each file. I suppose that means the code which assembles the bytecode to do the formatting should set a flag whenever it needs something from the email and if that's still clear when the bytecode is run then the file need not be read. Or, open the file and read the headers lazily on first access. -- Cheers, Ralph.
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
Hi Paul,
> I thought I'd be able to compare the message number against the output
> of "mark -list", but since sequences can be abbreviated with range
> notation, that gets complicated quickly. For example, message 6 is in
> the sequence todo, but it's hard to tell from this:
> $ mark -list -sequence todo
> todo: 1 3 5-8 13 16 46 49 52-53
This will expand the message numbers printed by mark(1) making a check
by something like ‘fgrep -qx 42’ trivial.
mark -list -seq public -seq private -seq notexist |
sed 's/.*: //' |
awk '{
for (n = 1; n <= NF; n++) {
c = split($n, w, /-/)
a = w[1]; b = c == 1 ? w[1] : w[2]
for (m = a; m <= b; m++) print m
}
}'
(My ~/bin/toseq happens to do roughly the opposite, compressing
sequential numbers into a range. :-)
--
Cheers, Ralph
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
Hi Bob, > but would suffer compared with Ken's approach in that deleted messages > would still be reported I don't think they would; mark(1) doesn't output removed messages, whether by rmm(1) or through the filesystem. $ p -seq bob last:3 3 hits $ mark -list -s bob bob: 96916-96918 $ rmm 96917 $ mark -list -s bob bob: 96916 96918 $ rm `mhpath 96918` $ mark -list -s bob bob: 96916 $ -- Cheers, Ralph.
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
Hi Paul, > $ mark -list > cur: 1 > odd: 1 3 5 7 9 > even: 2 4 6 8 10 > > $ mark -seq even -list > even: 2 4 6 8 10 > > $ mark -seq even -list 2-6 > even: 2 4 6 <-- previously output was "even: 2 4 6 8 10" > > $ mark -seq odd -list 2-6 > odd: 3 5 <-- previously output was "odd: 1 3 5 7 9" Up to here seems fine, assuming ‘2-6’ can also be ‘3 5 2 4 6’ or ‘3 5 even:3’. IOW, all the things I could normally scan(1), etc. > $ mark -list 2-6<-- previously behaved as "mark -list", above > odd: 3 5 > even: 2 4 6 I would have expected an extra line, $ mark -list 2-6 + cur: odd: 3 5 even: 2 4 6 because the messages given are being intersected with the normal ‘mark -list’ output you showed at the start above. IOW, if no messages are given then the default is ‘all’. This seems more orthogonal to me and means a script can give multiple sequences and expect one line for each in the output in the order the sequences were stated; there's no need to parse the ‘foo:’ or ‘bar (private):’ to identify the sequence involved. > $ mark -list 1-4<-- previously behaved as "mark -list", above > cur: 1 > odd: 1 3 > even: 2 4 An example not given here would be empty sequences, i.e. ones which don't exist. Currently: $ mark -l -s cur -s foo -s bar -s xyzzy cur: 96894 foo: bar: 97036 xyzzy: $ Still showing empty sequences with the new intersection would again be less surprising and simpler to explain. $ mark -l -s cur -s foo -s bar -s xyzzy notcur cur: foo: bar: 97036 xyzzy: $ BTW, ‘first’, etc., aren't sequences, as we know. $ p -seq first 42 pick: sequence name is reserved: first Yet, $ mark -l -s first -s cur -s last -s foo -s bar -s xyzzy first: cur: 96894 last: foo: bar: 97036 xyzzy: $ mark(1) doesn't complain and I'd expect it to as pick does. How does this new functionality help your original need? Were you thinking ‘mark -l -s foo 42’ would either be silent or not depending if 42 were in foo? If so, what parsing language were you cranking up to check. ;-) Finally, when I've wanted this functionality in the past, I've wondered if a new pick(1) test would be the way. Perhaps ‘-msg’ to match mh-format(5)'s ‘msg’ function. pick -msg 42 foo The exit status would be sufficient to tell if 42 was in sequence foo. Or if I want to know if any of sequence foo are in bar, xyzzy, or the last few messages then it would be nice if ‘-msg’s parameter could be more than a single message number. pick -msg foo bar xyzzy last:42 Really, all this brings us back to needing a nice set-based consistent algebra which all commands take. :-) Completely made up, without much consideration: forw subject:nmh \( !address:paul / mime-type:image/jpeg \) Mercurial, the CVS, Subversion, ... thing, has a couple of notations which are interesting for identifying files and revisions. The former has predicate functions, and the later has operators covering ancestry because revisions form a tree, much like emails in a thread. Specifying file sets https://manned.org/hg.1#head14 Specifying revisions https://manned.org/hg.1#head24 -- Cheers, Ralph.
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
Ah, thanks, Ralph! So, if in one's use case one typically makes use of the output of mark(1mh) immediately, then one is fine, as it'll check for the message files' current statuses. Or, at least if one is really careful about it. That is, until you're using Paul's enhancement to mark(1mh). B-) Bob On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 22:23:11 +0100 Ralph Corderoy sez: > Hi Bob, > > > but would suffer compared with Ken's approach in that deleted messages > > would still be reported > > I don't think they would; mark(1) doesn't output removed messages, > whether by rmm(1) or through the filesystem. > > $ p -seq bob last:3 > 3 hits > $ mark -list -s bob > bob: 96916-96918 > $ rmm 96917 > $ mark -list -s bob > bob: 96916 96918 > $ rm `mhpath 96918` > $ mark -list -s bob > bob: 96916 > $ > > -- > Cheers, Ralph.
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
ralph wrote: > ...a lot... I knew I was being wise to wait until you chimed in. It will take me a day or two to get to this. paul =-- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 40.1 degrees)
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
Hi Bob,
> Ah, thanks, Ralph!
Thanks to you for reminding me of awk's RS which, coupled with knowing
the only words starting with a positive number are a message range,
shortens my earlier sed and awk to
$ mark -list -seq public -seq private -seq notexist
public: 1-3 42
private (private): 3141 97057-97059
notexist:
$
$ mark -list -seq public -seq private -seq notexist |
> gawk -v RS=' |\n' -F - '
> $0+0 {u = NF==2 ? $2 : $1; for (n = $1; n <= u; n++) print n}
> '
1
2
3
42
3141
97057
97058
97059
$
--
Cheers, Ralph.
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
Hi,
I wrote:
> $ mark -list -seq public -seq private -seq notexist
> public: 1-3 42
> private (private): 3141 97057-97059
> notexist:
> $
> $ mark -list -seq public -seq private -seq notexist |
> > gawk -v RS=' |\n' -F - '
> > $0+0 {u = NF==2 ? $2 : $1; for (n = $1; n <= u; n++) print n}
> > '
> 1
> 2
> 3
> 42
> 3141
> 97057
> 97058
> 97059
> $
Silly me. No need for gawk's regexp RS as the ‘42\nprivate’ which
arrives with just the POSIX RS=' ' always has something to discard after
the linefeed so there's no need to split it off into its own record.
Thus, the above simplifies further, with the coercing of $1, into
mark -list -seq public -seq private -seq notexist |
awk -v RS=' ' -F - '
$0+0 {u = NF==2 ? $2 : $1; for (n = $1+0; n <= u; n++) print n}
'
--
Cheers, Ralph.
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
I'll shut up soon.
> mark -list -seq public -seq private -seq notexist |
> awk -v RS=' ' -F - '
> $0+0 {u = NF==2 ? $2 : $1; for (n = $1+0; n <= u; n++) print n}
> '
I thought I may as well create this and see if it gets used.
$ cat ~/bin/mhinseq
#! /bin/sh
# Successfully exit only if the message is in the sequence.
# usage: mhinseq seq 42
mark -list -sequence "${1?}" |
awk -v RS=' ' -F - -v msg="${2?}" '
$0+0 &&
((NF == 1 && $1+0 == msg) ||
(NF == 2 && $1 <= msg && msg <= $2)) {f=1; last}
END {exit !f}
'
$
--
Cheers, Ralph.
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
ralph wrote: > Hi Paul, > > > $ mark -list > > cur: 1 > > odd: 1 3 5 7 9 > > even: 2 4 6 8 10 > > > > $ mark -seq even -list > > even: 2 4 6 8 10 > > > > $ mark -seq even -list 2-6 > > even: 2 4 6<-- previously output was "even: 2 4 6 8 10" > > > > $ mark -seq odd -list 2-6 > > odd: 3 5 <-- previously output was "odd: 1 3 5 7 9" > > Up to here seems fine, assuming ‘2-6’ can also be ‘3 5 2 4 6’ or > ‘3 5 even:3’. IOW, all the things I could normally scan(1), etc. Yes. > > > $ mark -list 2-6<-- previously behaved as "mark -list", above > > odd: 3 5 > > even: 2 4 6 > > I would have expected an extra line, > > $ mark -list 2-6 > + cur: > odd: 3 5 > even: 2 4 6 > > because the messages given are being intersected with the normal > ‘mark -list’ output you showed at the start above. IOW, if no messages The current behavior matches my requirements, and the (new) description in the man page describes it. I wasn't thinking of it as an intersection, but a membership listing: "If msgs are specified, then only the sequence memberships for the given messages are shown, either for all se quences, or just for those named by -sequence switches." > are given then the default is ‘all’. This seems more orthogonal to me > and means a script can give multiple sequences and expect one line for > each in the output in the order the sequences were stated; there's no > need to parse the ‘foo:’ or ‘bar (private):’ to identify the sequence > involved. I understand your need. How about if adding "-zero" caused sequences in which the named messages aren't members to be listed as well? I.e., "include sequences with 'zero' results", The -zero switch is already overused by delete (to mean, "invert"), so I don't think this is too big a leap. New (additional) man description: "Normally sequences in which none of the given msgs are members are suppressed in the output. The -zero switch will cause all sequences mentioned on the command line to be listed, whether or not they include any of the specified messages." > An example not given here would be empty sequences, i.e. ones which > don't exist. Currently: > > $ mark -l -s cur -s foo -s bar -s xyzzy > cur: 96894 > foo: > bar: 97036 > xyzzy: Is this actually the desired behavior? Shouldn't mark instead complain with "mark: no such sequence as xyzzy"? I hadn't realized that mark was currently silent about this, and my patch is not silent like that, when messages are provided: $ mark -l -s odd -s xyzzy odd: 1 3 5 7 9 xyzzy: $ mark -l -s odd -s xyzzy 1 odd: 1 mark: no such sequence as xyzzy The behaviors should clearly match. I think I'd prefer the error, but you can try to convince me.. > ... > > BTW, ‘first’, etc., aren't sequences, as we know. > > $ p -seq first 42 > pick: sequence name is reserved: first > > Yet, > > $ mark -l -s first -s cur -s last -s foo -s bar -s xyzzy > first: > cur: 96894 > last: > foo: > bar: 97036 > xyzzy: > $ > > mark(1) doesn't complain and I'd expect it to as pick does. I agree that it should be an error. And again, it seems that if "first" is in error, then "xyzzy" should also be considered an error. > > How does this new functionality help your original need? Were you > thinking ‘mark -l -s foo 42’ would either be silent or not depending if > 42 were in foo? If so, what parsing language were you cranking up to > check. ;-) Obviously, the same one I'm already running: if [ "$(mark -list -sequence foo 42)" ] then ... > > Finally, when I've wanted this functionality in the past, I've wondered > if a new pick(1) test would be the way. Perhaps ‘-msg’ to match > mh-format(5)'s ‘msg’ function. > > pick -msg 42 foo > Perhaps I should have started there. But the man page for mark came so close to describing what I wanted that I actually tried it, assuming/hoping it would already work. paul > The exit status would be sufficient to tell if 42 was in sequence foo. > > Or if I want to know if any of sequence foo are in bar, xyzzy, or the > last few messages then it would be nice if ‘-msg’s parameter could be > more than a single message number. > > pick -msg foo bar xyzzy last:42 > > Really, all this brings us back to needing a nice set-based consistent > algebra which all commands take. :-) Completely made up, without much > consideration: > > forw subject:nmh \( !address:paul / mime-type:image/jpeg \) > > Mercurial, the CVS, Subversion, ... thing, has a couple of notations > which are interesting for identifying files and revisions. The former > has predicate functions, and the later has operators covering ancestry > because revisions form a tree, much like emai
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
Hi Paul, > > > $ mark -list 2-6<-- previously behaved as "mark -list", above > > > odd: 3 5 > > > even: 2 4 6 > > > > I would have expected an extra line, > > > > $ mark -list 2-6 > > + cur: > > odd: 3 5 > > even: 2 4 6 > > > > because the messages given are being intersected with the normal > > ‘mark -list’ output you showed at the start above. > > The current behavior matches my requirements, and the (new) > description in the man page describes it. Naturally. :-) > I wasn't thinking of it as an intersection, but a membership listing: > >"If msgs are specified, then only the sequence memberships for the > given messages are shown, either for all sequences, or just for > those named by -sequence switches." > > > IOW, if no messages are given then the default is ‘all’. This seems > > more orthogonal to me and means a script can give multiple sequences > > and expect one line for each in the output in the order the > > sequences were stated; there's no need to parse the ‘foo:’ or ‘bar > > (private):’ to identify the sequence involved. > > I understand your need. How about if adding "-zero" caused sequences > in which the named messages aren't members to be listed as well? > I.e., "include sequences with 'zero' results", The -zero switch is > already overused by delete (to mean, "invert"), so I don't think this > is too big a leap. New (additional) man description: > >"Normally sequences in which none of the given msgs are members are > suppressed in the output. The -zero switch will cause all > sequences mentioned on the command line to be listed, whether or > not they include any of the specified messages." My suggested behaviour: - Using -list shows sequences and the messages in them. - If any -sequences are given then only those sequences are listed rather than all sequences. - If any messages are given then only those messages will be shown rather than all messages. I don't need to describe the interaction of those two cases because they combine in the natural manner; they're orthogonal to each other. (The code may well echo that lack of intertwining.) You're suggesting not listing sequences with zero messages. The existing -zero/-nozero option's default is -nozero but mark's existing behaviour is to list sequences with zero messages so the meaning doesn't match. (And the overloading of -zero for -delete's use has always seemed confusing and non-obvious to me. :-) A new -empty/-noempty could state whether to list empty sequences. Default -empty to keep the existing behaviour. > > An example not given here would be empty sequences, i.e. ones which > > don't exist. Currently: > > > > $ mark -l -s cur -s foo -s bar -s xyzzy > > cur: 96894 > > foo: > > bar: 97036 > > xyzzy: > > Is this actually the desired behavior? Shouldn't mark instead complain > with "mark: no such sequence as xyzzy"? That would be annoying if I want to know which sequences are empty. Would mark(1) state that on stderr and stop or keep going on stdout for non-empty sequences? Does stderr get just the first one which doesn't exist, or all of them? Just the first means a script would have to adjust and re-run until stderr is empty as well as capturing both stdout and stderr. (It's an annoying artefact of MH's implementation that an empty sequence is deleted and thus indistinguishable from a typo'd sequence. It's like not having the number zero.) > I hadn't realized that mark was currently silent about this, and my > patch is not silent like that, when messages are provided: > > $ mark -l -s odd -s xyzzy > odd: 1 3 5 7 9 > xyzzy: > $ mark -l -s odd -s xyzzy 1 > odd: 1 > mark: no such sequence as xyzzy > > The behaviors should clearly match. Yes. > I think I'd prefer the error, but you can try to convince me.. You'd be changing existing behaviour. > > BTW, ‘first’, etc., aren't sequences, as we know. > > > > $ p -seq first 42 > > pick: sequence name is reserved: first > > > > Yet, > > > > $ mark -l -s first -s cur -s last -s foo -s bar -s xyzzy > > first: > > cur: 96894 > > last: > > foo: > > bar: 97036 > > xyzzy: > > $ > > > > mark(1) doesn't complain and I'd expect it to as pick does. > > I agree that it should be an error. And again, it seems that if > "first" is in error, then "xyzzy" should also be considered an error. I don't think so because ‘first’ is a reserved word, as the error says, whereas ‘xyzzy’ isn't. (Though surely we can think of some meaning and make is so. :-) -- Cheers, Ralph.
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
Okay -- I'm on board. How's this? The commands are: uip/mark -l uip/mark -l -noempty uip/mark -l -s big -s cur uip/mark -l -s big -s cur -noempty uip/mark -l -s big -s cur -s xyzzy uip/mark -l -s big -s cur -s xyzzy -noempty uip/mark -l 9 uip/mark -l 9 -noempty uip/mark -l -s big -s cur 9 uip/mark -l -s big -s cur 9 -noempty uip/mark -l -s big -s cur -s xyzzy 9 uip/mark -l -s big -s cur -s xyzzy 9 -noempty $ uip/mark -l cur: odd: 1 3 5 7 9 even: 2 4 6 8 10 big: 8-10 $ uip/mark -l -noempty odd: 1 3 5 7 9 even: 2 4 6 8 10 big: 8-10 $ uip/mark -l -s big -s cur big: 8-10 cur: $ uip/mark -l -s big -s cur -noempty big: 8-10 $ uip/mark -l -s big -s cur -s xyzzy big: 8-10 cur: xyzzy: $ uip/mark -l -s big -s cur -s xyzzy -noempty big: 8-10 $ uip/mark -l 9 cur: odd: 9 even: big: 9 $ uip/mark -l 9 -noempty odd: 9 big: 9 $ uip/mark -l -s big -s cur 9 big: 9 cur: $ uip/mark -l -s big -s cur 9 -noempty big: 9 $ uip/mark -l -s big -s cur -s xyzzy 9 big: 9 cur: xyzzy: $ uip/mark -l -s big -s cur -s xyzzy 9 -noempty big: 9 =-- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 55.0 degrees)
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
Hi Paul, > How's this? The commands are: > uip/mark -l > uip/mark -l -noempty > uip/mark -l -s big -s cur > uip/mark -l -s big -s cur -noempty > uip/mark -l -s big -s cur -s xyzzy > uip/mark -l -s big -s cur -s xyzzy -noempty > uip/mark -l 9 > uip/mark -l 9 -noempty > uip/mark -l -s big -s cur 9 > uip/mark -l -s big -s cur 9 -noempty > uip/mark -l -s big -s cur -s xyzzy 9 > uip/mark -l -s big -s cur -s xyzzy 9 -noempty I think the output looks spot on and the tests cover the twelve ways of combining 3 × 2 × 2 settings. Sequence: all existing existing-and-non-existing Message: all stated Empty: empty noempty What if ‘uip/mark -l 42’ is done where 42 doesn't exist? I think that should complain 42 doesn't exist to be consistent with a mark to add to a sequence, or a scan of it, and you probably get that behaviour ‘for free’, but I'm just checking. Sorry for the extra labour, I realise it's easier to just heckle and lob empty beer bottles. :-) -- Cheers, Ralph.
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
>> but would suffer compared with Ken's approach in that deleted messages >> would still be reported > >I don't think they would; mark(1) doesn't output removed messages, >whether by rmm(1) or through the filesystem. >[...] Right, any nmh program which calls folder_read() (which is basically almost all of them) performs a readdir() on the whole folder and reads in the sequences; as part of that it cleans up any sequence entries that refer to missing files. Well, let me amend that statement. _Internally_ the sequence list is cleaned up. But the cleaned-up sequence doesn't get written unless you use a program that modifies any sequence (specifically, it has to set the SEQMOD bit on the folder). So if you are directly reading the sequence file it is possible that it will refer to a message that does not exist _IF_ you delete messages from a folder without going through nmh. But no nmh utility should say that a nonexistant message is a member of a sequence (with the caveat that it COULD happen if you delete a message after a nmh program calls folder_read()). --Ken
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
ralph wrote: > I think the output looks spot on and the tests cover the twelve ways of > combining 3 × 2 × 2 settings. :-) That's why I wrote the commands first, and automated running them. I kept forgetting to try some combination or other. > What if ‘uip/mark -l 42’ is done where 42 doesn't exist? I think that $ mark -l 9 42 mark: message 42 doesn't exist No output except the error message. > > Sorry for the extra labour, I realise it's easier to just heckle and lob > empty beer bottles. :-) No worries! It's important to get it right. As a bonus, somehow the man page paragraph for -list has shrunk bit, which I think means the options are cleaner, or I'm thinking about them more cleanly. The -list switch tells mark to list all sequences and the messages associated with them. The output can be limited to just certain sequences (with -sequence switches) and/or messages (with msgs arguments). The -noempty switch will suppress sequences which would be listed as empty, either because they actually are empty, or because they don't include any messages specified by msgs. The -zero switch does not affect the operation of -list. paul =-- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 58.6 degrees)
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
One more thing. mark has always compressed its output: "3 4 5 6" becomes "3-6". It still does so after my changes. While we were talking about using existing commands to solve my "check if a message is in a sequence" problem, it became clear that the range compression was an impediment. Now that I've added the ability to explicitly ask "is message 4 part of sequence foo", range compression isn't really an issue, but it feels like we should be able to control it. I'd kind of like to add -terse/-noterse: $ uip/mark -l big: 9-10 lots: 7-12 $ uip/mark -l -noterse big: 9 10 lots: 7 8 9 10 11 12 Thoughts? (I'd also love to fix the old bug that causes "9 10" to be displayed as "9-10", but I probably shouldn't. Someone probably relies on it.) paul =-- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 64.6 degrees)
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
Paul wrote: > I'd kind of like to add -terse/-noterse: > Thoughts? I like it. > (I'd also love to fix the old bug that causes "9 10" to be displayed as > "9-10", but I probably shouldn't. Someone probably relies on it.) Agreed. David
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
>> I'd kind of like to add -terse/-noterse: > >> Thoughts? > >I like it. I confess I don't LOVE -terse/-noterse, but I cannot think of anything better right now; I say go for it. --Ken
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
ken wrote: > >> I'd kind of like to add -terse/-noterse: > > > >> Thoughts? > > > >I like it. > > I confess I don't LOVE -terse/-noterse, but I cannot think of anything > better right now; I say go for it. I thought of using "curt", and "nocurt", but that didn't seem right either. ;-) But maybe you're not fond of the concept, rather than just the name? paul =-- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 67.5 degrees)
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
Hi Paul, > it became clear that the range compression was an impediment. Now > that I've added the ability to explicitly ask "is message 4 part of > sequence foo", range compression isn't really an issue, but it feels > like we should be able to control it. I'd kind of like to add > -terse/-noterse: -range/-norange. :-) > (I'd also love to fix the old bug that causes "9 10" to be displayed as > "9-10", but I probably shouldn't. Someone probably relies on it.) I wasn't aware it was a bug, more an easy way to spot singletons; messages without an adjacent neighbour in the sequence. -- Cheers, Ralph.
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
ralph wrote: > Hi Paul, > > > it became clear that the range compression was an impediment. Now > > that I've added the ability to explicitly ask "is message 4 part of > > sequence foo", range compression isn't really an issue, but it feels > > like we should be able to control it. I'd kind of like to add > > -terse/-noterse: > > -range/-norange. :-) I thought of that too, as a close second to -terse/-noterse. And it's more specific. I'd be happy with that, if others prefer it. > > > (I'd also love to fix the old bug that causes "9 10" to be displayed as > > "9-10", but I probably shouldn't. Someone probably relies on it.) > > I wasn't aware it was a bug, more an easy way to spot singletons; > messages without an adjacent neighbour in the sequence. Thanks. That might make me feel better about it. I'd never write an adjacent pair as a range myself, so I find it jarring, and it makes it look like there's something in between. It's hard to believe it wasn't intentional, though, given that it's a two line fix. paul =-- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 67.5 degrees)
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
> > I confess I don't LOVE -terse/-noterse, but I cannot think of anything > > better right now; I say go for it. > >I thought of using "curt", and "nocurt", but that didn't seem right >either. ;-) > >But maybe you're not fond of the concept, rather than just the name? Oh, no, the CONCEPT is fine, I just didn't love the name. I like -range/-norange slightly better, but I still don't find it great. Something like -compress/-nocompress MIGHT be better, but again, I'm not loving it. I am only offering feedback on this because you asked for it. Really, I think the important thing is to get the feature in there. Any of the suggested names I could live with; just pick whatever you think is best. --Ken
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
Hi Ken, > Oh, no, the CONCEPT is fine, I just didn't love the name. I like > -range/-norange slightly better, but I still don't find it great. > Something like -compress/-nocompress MIGHT be better, but again, I'm > not loving it. > > I am only offering feedback on this because you asked for it. Really, > I think the important thing is to get the feature in there. Any of > the suggested names I could live with; just pick whatever you think is > best. Once it escapes into a release, it's hard to cull or replace. :-) I went for -range because it's controlling the printing as ‘lo-hi’ and mh-sequence(5) already says things like A message range is specified as “name1-name2” or “name:n”, where `name', `name1' and `name2' are message names, and `n' is an integer. The “reserved” message name “all” is a shorthand for the message range “first-last”. Sequence File Format A contiguous range of messages can be represented as “lownum-highnum”. It's nice to keep to as small a range of specialist vocabularly as possible. Some of the more confusing aspects of understanding something new is when multiple terms refer to the same or overlapping thing. -- Cheers, Ralph.
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
ken wrote: > > > >But maybe you're not fond of the concept, rather than just the name? > > Oh, no, the CONCEPT is fine, I just didn't love the name. I like > -range/-norange slightly better, but I still don't find it great. > Something like -compress/-nocompress MIGHT be better, but again, I'm > not loving it. Maybe shrink/noshrink? I'll let all these sit for a day, then commit something. paul =-- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 72.9 degrees)
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
> -terse/-noterse > -curt/-nocurt > -range/-norange > -compress/-nocompress Probably not helping, but I see the word "compact" applied to number ranges like this in a few places on the net. Conrad
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
Paul wrote: > Maybe shrink/noshrink? I prefer [no]range. It seems to me to be the most relevant and specific. David
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
>> Maybe shrink/noshrink? > >I prefer [no]range. It seems to me to be the most relevant and specific. I find myself ultimately persuaded by Ralph's argument, so also put me down for [no]range. --Ken
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
In a message of Sun, 02 May 2021 14:11:44 -0400, Ken Hornstein writes: >> > I confess I don't LOVE -terse/-noterse, but I cannot think of anything >> > better right now; I say go for it. >> >>I thought of using "curt", and "nocurt", but that didn't seem right >>either. ;-) >> >>But maybe you're not fond of the concept, rather than just the name? > >Oh, no, the CONCEPT is fine, I just didn't love the name. I like >-range/-norange slightly better, but I still don't find it great. >Something like -compress/-nocompress MIGHT be better, but again, I'm >not loving it. -noexpand/-expand ?? Laura
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
I don't know about others, Ralph, but I would prefer you don't
shut up soon. B-) This is how I learn (or am reminded) about
all kinds of features of awk/sed/bash/etc. -- in addition to NMH
stuff I never knew since I'm such a "basic" user -- and I really
appreciate the (perhaps unintended) lessons! B-)
Bob
> From: Ralph Corderoy
> To: nmh-workers@nongnu.org
> Date: Sat, 01 May 2021 12:26:06 +0100
> Subject: Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> > Ah, thanks, Ralph!
>
> Thanks to you for reminding me of awk's RS which, coupled with knowing
> the only words starting with a positive number are a message range,
> shortens my earlier sed and awk to
>
> $ mark -list -seq public -seq private -seq notexist
> public: 1-3 42
> private (private): 3141 97057-97059
> notexist:
> $
> $ mark -list -seq public -seq private -seq notexist |
> > gawk -v RS=' |\n' -F - '
> > $0+0 {u = NF==2 ? $2 : $1; for (n = $1; n <= u; n++) print n}
> > '
> 1
> 2
> 3
> 42
> 3141
> 97057
> 97058
> 97059
> $
>
> --
> Cheers, Ralph.
> From: Ralph Corderoy
> To: nmh-workers@nongnu.org
> Date: Sat, 01 May 2021 12:43:27 +0100
> Subject: Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
>
> Hi,
>
> I wrote:
> > $ mark -list -seq public -seq private -seq notexist
> > public: 1-3 42
> > private (private): 3141 97057-97059
> > notexist:
> > $
> > $ mark -list -seq public -seq private -seq notexist |
> > > gawk -v RS=' |\n' -F - '
> > > $0+0 {u = NF==2 ? $2 : $1; for (n = $1; n <= u; n++) print n}
> > > '
> > 1
> > 2
> > 3
> > 42
> > 3141
> > 97057
> > 97058
> > 97059
> > $
>
> Silly me. No need for gawk's regexp RS as the ‘42\nprivate’ which
> arrives with just the POSIX RS=' ' always has something to discard after
> the linefeed so there's no need to split it off into its own record.
> Thus, the above simplifies further, with the coercing of $1, into
>
> mark -list -seq public -seq private -seq notexist |
> awk -v RS=' ' -F - '
> $0+0 {u = NF==2 ? $2 : $1; for (n = $1+0; n <= u; n++) print n}
> '
>
> --
> Cheers, Ralph.
> From: Ralph Corderoy
> To: nmh-workers@nongnu.org
> Date: Sat, 01 May 2021 12:59:16 +0100
> Subject: Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
>
> I'll shut up soon.
>
> > mark -list -seq public -seq private -seq notexist |
> > awk -v RS=' ' -F - '
> > $0+0 {u = NF==2 ? $2 : $1; for (n = $1+0; n <= u; n++) print n}
> > '
>
> I thought I may as well create this and see if it gets used.
>
> $ cat ~/bin/mhinseq
> #! /bin/sh
>
> # Successfully exit only if the message is in the sequence.
> # usage: mhinseq seq 42
>
> mark -list -sequence "${1?}" |
> awk -v RS=' ' -F - -v msg="${2?}" '
> $0+0 &&
> ((NF == 1 && $1+0 == msg) ||
>(NF == 2 && $1 <= msg && msg <= $2)) {f=1; last}
> END {exit !f}
> '
> $
>
> --
> Cheers, Ralph.
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
laura wrote: > > -noexpand/-expand ?? > You almost had me with that one, and it pointed out that I'd only been looking at synonyms for compress, or terse, forgetting completely that an antonym could work just as well. In the end, though, the specificity of -range/-norange won out. I've pushed all of the mark(1) changes I've been working on. paul =-- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 55.6 degrees)
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:06 +0100, Ralph Corderoy said: > I went for -range because it's controlling the printing as âlo-hiâ and > mh-sequence(5) already says things like > > A message range is specified as âname1-name2â or âname:nâ, where > `name', `name1' and `name2' are message names, and `n' is an > integer. So -range means "make it into a range if possible" and -norange doesn't. I'm sold. :) And yes, being able to say -norange is handy if you're doing something where you're grabbing a range and then feeding it to a shell's "for i in $foo". (Over the decades that's annoyed me - a big reason I don't use mark more is because I'm usually using that to feed something else that doesn't grok "14-19" pgpry30ACwrrf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?
Hi Valdis, > So -range means "make it into a range if possible" and -norange doesn't. Yes. -showrange would be more explicit with the new -empty being -showempty to match but then the common -show prefix hampers nmh's shortest-unique-prefix option-parsing. Given we're MH users, I thought we could handle thinking ‘I want empty’ ⇒ -empty. -- Cheers, Ralph.
