On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:07:01AM -0700, Brendan Cully wrote: > > 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 This is no better than ignoring errors entirely, without even bothering to check to see if the file changed. The model Mutt has chosen to use is that it calls external programs to deal with editing mail. Having chosen this model, Mutt has some responsibility to the user to make sure what results from running the editor is in some way sane. > The script approach, on the other hand, is a lot simpler for mutt. Simpler, yes... but also horribly wrong, worse than all of the other currently proposed alternatives. When there *is* an error, mutt will happily send an unchanged message, and not alert the user to the fact this has happened. -- 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:
pgpJHnMo5X7O0.pgp
Description: PGP signature