On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:17:53PM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > Nonsense. If Mutt behaves badly dealing with a common application > > that people use in conjunction with Mutt, especially one Mutt > > specifically intends to be compatible with (like vi), then Mutt is > > broken. > > > that's absurd. if you have such an utterly broken program and still want > to use it, wrap it in a script. if you lose data then, it's you own > fault. It's not broken. The application developer has the right to use any exit status he wants. Mutt CAN NOT make assumptions about what the exit status means. The user is a USER. They should not have to write code to make Mutt behave sanely. It's far from absurd, it is in fact the only reasonable option, and I have no doubt that is why it was designed that way from the start, and persisted that way for 9 years. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Attachment:
pgpq5CXX5Ud84.pgp
Description: PGP signature