On Jun 15 at 08:03, Derek Martin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:31:22PM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 13 at 06:03 PM, quoth Jean-Pierre Radley: > > >Under Posix 2004 rules, I'm not sure what exit status vi will > > >present, but the vi on all variants of Unix from SCO, as well as the > > >vi on Solaris 10, adhere to the Posix 2001 standard, which includes > > >in the clause 'consequences of errors' "... or when an error is > > >detected that is a consequence of data (not) present in the file, > > >..." and "ex/vi shall terminate with a nonzero exit status." > > The fact is, exit status is application-dependent on Unix systems, > POSIX or not.
I tend to agree it's "wrong" to report "failure" due to a pattern match, but it seems that it's not against POSIX to do so, so we're stuck in a human-factors conundrum IMO. What do people think about allowing the user to specify in their muttrc what values do and do not constitute a fatal error coming from their editor? It seems to me mutt *should* react if it is told there's been a fatal editor failure, and given that the standard means of communicating such an error has occurred is inherently broken, we should allow for another means. Mike -- Mike Hunter Contributor-in-waiting, "The Mutt Subject Spellcheck Patch" http://marc.info/?l=mutt-dev&m=117268263816741&w=2
