<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released



On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:10:43PM -0400, Mike Hunter wrote:

> My one concern is that I can't seem to find any documentation that ANY
> common editor actually endorses a return value that signifies a fatal
> error...but maybe we should encourage them :)

SCO are dying anyway, so I don't think that OS really merits consideration.

Also, getting Sun to fix what most people would regard as a broken behaviour
of their editor is probably a good thing, regardless of what decision is
taken regarding the exit status in mutt.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that 99% of programs regard a non-zero
exit as an error; this makes it a de-facto standard. The fact some programs
are brain-dead doesn't really excuse this.

On the other hand, if mutt still has the support for checking if a message
has been modified or not, why is this thread even existing? Use that. Job
done. This discussion's been going on for a couple of days now, and AFAICS
seems to be going around in circles.

-- 
Paul

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature