🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.mail.mush
Article #156

Re: Why is this (partially) broken now?

#156
From: Barton E. Schaefer
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1989 18:29
39 lines
2760 bytes
In article <3002@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> ste%hudson@aloft.ATT.COM (Shaun T. Erickson) writes:
} 
} mush       -Wp   88  47 -Ws 703 761 -WP  584 588 -Wi -Wb   0   0 140 -Wf 255 130   0 -t -Wg
} 
} This always worked in my setup file just fine, before I switched to the
} mushview version. Now mush blows up on this - complaining about invalid
} arguments - resulting in mush coming up in line mode, in compose mode,
} and asking for a subject for the letter which is addressed to all the
} command line arguments (except for the first argument, which it choked on).

This results from a SunWindows and SunView incompatibility.  Under
SunWindows, the tool_parse_all() function could be called to remove
the -W flags and their arguments whether the program was actually
running under suntools or not.  The equivalent window_create() call
in SunView fails if there is not a base window in the environment.
Mush's argument parser can't easily be taught to understand every
possible -W flag and it's following parameters; therefore:

} I have found that if I move the single mushview argument, the "-t", to be
} the first argument to mush, it works just fine, but this means I now have
} to manually edit my startup file - not very freindly, eh?

This is documented.  The -t must now be the first argument, otherwise
mush is not able to detect that it should be starting as a tool and
will not call window-create() to remove the -W flags.

} Why is this broken now, and which should be fixed: mush, toolplaces, or me?

When mush is installed with toolmode capability, there should always be
a link to it, named "mushtool".  If the "tool" suffix is present, mush
will not bother looking for the -t argument and calls window_create()
immediately.  You should change your command to use "mushtool" instead
of "mush" as the command name.  I'm not familiar enough with "toolplaces"
to tell you what needs to change to accomplish this.
-- 
Bart Schaefer           "And if you believe that, you'll believe anything."
                                                            -- DangerMouse
CSNET / Internet                schaefer@cse.ogc.edu
UUCP                            ...{sequent,tektronix,verdix}!ogccse!schaefer
Technical Details
Message-ID: <4316@ogccse.ogc.edu>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!husc6!ogccse!schaefer
References: <3002@cbnewsm.ATT.COM>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!husc6!ogccse!schaefer
From: schaefer@ogccse.ogc.edu (Barton E. Schaefer)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.mush
Subject: Re: Why is this (partially) broken now?
Keywords: toolplaces, arguments, order
Message-ID: <4316@ogccse.ogc.edu>
Date: 22 Aug 89 18:29:50 GMT
References: <3002@cbnewsm.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: schaefer@ogccse.UUCP (Barton E. Schaefer)
Organization: Oregon Graduate Center, Beaverton, OR
Lines: 39