On Mon, 05 Jan 2015, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Montag, 5. Januar 2015, Don Armstrong wrote: > > It's not always very clear what would be meant; messages to control can > > affect any bug, and currently the only thing that happens when you send > > a message to [email protected] is that -1 is pre-populated to mean nnn. > > I guess my mail subject was misleading: I didnt mean mails to control, but to > [email protected] with "control: $action $params" in the body > instead > of "control: $action -1 $params". (as in my example)
I understood you, but I may not have been clear enough in my explanation: The Control: psuedoheader for [email protected] is exactly the same as e-mailing control@, with the caveat that -1 is prepopulated to be nnn. An implicit bug would require a totally separate grammar for the Control: psuedoheader, which would also lead to clone and block being ambiguous, as it wouldn't be clear whether you wanted clone -1 -2 to mean clone nnn -2 or clone nnn -1 -2, etc. While DWIM is a good thing in general, I don't think this would be a good addition to the control grammar. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com I would like to be the air that inhabits you for a moment only. I would like to be that unnoticed & that necessary. -- Margaret Atwood "Poetry in Motion" p140 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
