Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released
On Saturday, 16 June 2007 at 12:46, Mike Hunter wrote:
> 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.
I don't think having some editor_error_code configuration list is
substantially easier for users than
#!/bin/sh
vim "$@"; true
The script approach, on the other hand, is a lot simpler for mutt.