Re: Attachment counting feature at risk.
* On 2006.04.28, in <20060428204644.GE2788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
* "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> At this point, I'm quite inclined to drop the current
> attachment counting feature from CVS -- what we have now is
> general, it gives correct results, and it's awfully
> inefficient.
>
> Please scream *now*.
Perhaps obviously, I do use it, and I've heard from others who use
it. The patch, when it was committed, was at rev. 8 in part because of
exhanges with other users who went beyond "~h Content-type: multipart"
variations.
I'm certainly willing to review this and try to make corrections, if
you're willing to keep the feature if fixed. It's clear that there is a
bug in the code. But do remember that it doesn't come up at all unless
you're using %X/~X, so there's no harm to performance in the immediate
term. The only damage (if you're not asking for it) is in code purity.
I've posted a poll to mutt-users, since I don't think a weekend question
to mutt-dev will be very representative. I'll report on what I hear.
--
-D. dgc@xxxxxxxxxxxx NSIT University of Chicago