* On 2007.03.05, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, * "Brendan Cully" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (though in the case of this particular patch, I'm thinking of > attempting to fix up dgc's fmtpipe patch instead, since it's a little > more general).
That would be lovely. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. I don't think I've ever seen specific problems with this patch mentioned, although Thomas once wrote: > > http://home.uchicago.edu/~dgc/sw/mutt/patch-1.5.6.dgc.fmtpipe.1 > > DT_STR variables can be specified as pipes, with syntactic > > advantages over backticking, deferred execution, and > > consistency with DT_PATH. > > This one has the potential to break quite a few things... If we > want the deferred execution, we should rather think about having a > configuration file syntax like double backticks or something. But I was never sure what this would break, even if it's perhaps not an ideal solution. It might be nice to see the pipe notation extended to more DT_ types, in fact, but I've not often wanted that myself. -- -D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] NSIT University of Chicago
