Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released
On Jun 15 at 08:03, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:31:22PM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 13 at 06:03 PM, quoth Jean-Pierre Radley:
> > >Under Posix 2004 rules, I'm not sure what exit status vi will
> > >present, but the vi on all variants of Unix from SCO, as well as the
> > >vi on Solaris 10, adhere to the Posix 2001 standard, which includes
> > >in the clause 'consequences of errors' "... or when an error is
> > >detected that is a consequence of data (not) present in the file,
> > >..." and "ex/vi shall terminate with a nonzero exit status."
>
> The fact is, exit status is application-dependent on Unix systems,
> POSIX or not.
I tend to agree it's "wrong" to report "failure" due to a pattern match,
but it seems that it's not against POSIX to do so, so we're stuck in a
human-factors conundrum IMO.
What do people think about allowing the user to specify in their muttrc
what values do and do not constitute a fatal error coming from their
editor? It seems to me mutt *should* react if it is told there's been a
fatal editor failure, and given that the standard means of communicating
such an error has occurred is inherently broken, we should allow for
another means.
Mike
--
Mike Hunter
Contributor-in-waiting, "The Mutt Subject Spellcheck Patch"
http://marc.info/?l=mutt-dev&m=117268263816741&w=2