Re: [Nmh-workers] forw and repl's -file option.

Hi Ken, > Hm. I am reluctant to remove functionality that people might find > useful; what do others think? David said off-list that he occasionally uses `repl -file' so I guess they stay. Just axe the `msh' comments? I meant to say last time, we could maintain statistics under `mhpath +', e.g.

Re: [Nmh-workers] forw and repl's -file option.

>> I am wondering if any third-party tools use those switches? A quick >> grep suggests that exmh does NOT; what about MH-E? > >Some git-grep's through https://git.code.sf.net/p/mh-e/git suggests not. Hm. I am reluctant to remove functionality that people might find useful; what do others think?

Re: [Nmh-workers] forw and repl's -file option.

Hi Ken, > >uip/forw.c:X("file file", 4, FILESW) /* interface from msh */ \ > >uip/repl.c:X("file file", 4, FILESW) /* interface from msh */ \ > > I am wondering if any third-party tools use those switches? A quick > grep suggests that exmh does NOT; what about MH-E? Some git-grep

Re: [Nmh-workers] forw and repl's -file option.

>Mopping up remaining bits of the deleted msh(1), I find > >uip/forw.c:X("file file", 4, FILESW) /* interface from msh */ \ >uip/repl.c:X("file file", 4, FILESW) /* interface from msh */ \ I am wondering if any third-party tools use those switches? A quick grep suggests that exmh

[Nmh-workers] forw and repl's -file option.

Hi, Mopping up remaining bits of the deleted msh(1), I find uip/forw.c:X("file file", 4, FILESW) /* interface from msh */ \ uip/repl.c:X("file file", 4, FILESW) /* interface from msh */ \ They're in the commands' man pages. Should they stay or should they go nooww? -- Cheers, R