🚀 go-pugleaf

westes@netcom.com (Will Estes) writes:
>syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) writes:
>>Elm 2.x does not have an option that lets you see and edit the elmheaders
>>file on a message by message basis.

>Well, let me explain why I think that is a bug.  By not parsing the

Blah, blah...

I've had this thought in the back of my mind for a long time, and
only now has it actually formed properly (triggered, I'd say):

Would it be difficult to add postprocessing to message preparation
(in the above instance, some program could be invoked to sort the
headers in some prescribed sequence and filter them through "uniq")?

In my particular instance, I default tabs to 4 spaces in "vi"
and then end up with irremediably confused messages because the
reading default is 8 spaces.  I have a program to expand tabs which
I inevitable neglect to call from vi and would like applied to
each message I produce.

I'm sure creeping featurism must be a feature in Elm, but it is such
a versatile tool, it's difficult to hold back the suggestions.

Personally, I feel a lot of the features Elm shares with Smail (like
address resolution, for example) should be relegated to a separate
program, specially where processes can be spawned cheaply (not my
PC 7300, though), in the original one-task-one-program tradition.

And while I'm about it, I find the following flaw with most Unix
tools: they allow me to manipulate their _own_ environment, but
not that of the processes (the SHELL in particular) that they may
spawn.  Putting it simply, I'd like to type !PATH=xxxxx or
set PATH=xxxx and make it stick!

Lucio de Re - using and liking Elm more and more,
              but already four patches behind.

lucio@proxima.alt.za