On Monday, 05 March 2007 at 15:58, David Champion wrote: > * On 2007.03.05, in <20070305214328.GA28253@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > * "Brendan Cully" <brendan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > (though in the case of this particular patch, I'm thinking of > > attempting to fix up dgc's fmtpipe patch instead, since it's a little > > more general). > > That would be lovely. Let me know if there's anything I can do to > help. I don't think I've ever seen specific problems with this patch > mentioned, although Thomas once wrote: I think I may have mentioned in the $xtitle thread, your patch doesn't handle things like %> which cause recursive invocations of mutt_FormatString. I think this would be easy to fix by having mutt_FormatString check for a pipe at the end (or whatever syntax gets used), and if so pop off the first argument (maybe with extract_token to get the quoting right) and the pipe, and recursively expand what's left before piping it through the first argument. It'd be great if you could take a stab at it. > > > http://home.uchicago.edu/~dgc/sw/mutt/patch-1.5.6.dgc.fmtpipe.1 > > > DT_STR variables can be specified as pipes, with syntactic > > > advantages over backticking, deferred execution, and > > > consistency with DT_PATH. > > > > This one has the potential to break quite a few things... If we > > want the deferred execution, we should rather think about having a > > configuration file syntax like double backticks or something. > > But I was never sure what this would break, even if it's perhaps not an > ideal solution. The only thing I can see is that it would cause problems for people who happen to have | at the end of some of their variable assignments. Thomas, did you have something else in mind? > It might be nice to see the pipe notation extended to more DT_ types, in > fact, but I've not often wanted that myself.
Description: PGP signature