On Saturday, 16 June 2007 at 12:46, Mike Hunter wrote: > 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.
I don't think having some editor_error_code configuration list is substantially easier for users than #!/bin/sh vim "$@"; true The script approach, on the other hand, is a lot simpler for mutt.
