Aaron Schrab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 27 Dec 1999:
> The idea has been brought up before.
Okay. Does that mean that it's a feature people would want and it's not
just been implemented yet, or that the idea's just been shot down?
[send-hooks applied after reply-hooks]
> With that order there's really no way to undo any changes done by the
> reply-hooks; you can't use a send-hook since that would undo the changes
> before they had any affect, but you can't use a reply-hook since the
> next message sent might not be a reply.
OK, I see the problem, yes.
To avoid that, there would need to be a hook which gets called whenever
a non-reply mail is sent. It could be a special reply-hook, or a
separate mail-hook construct. But that's getting a bit overly complex.
:-(
> I think a better solution, although possibly much more difficult to do,
> would be to have a pattern operator (~o perhaps) that modified the next
> operator (or possibly the entire pattern) to match against the original
> message for a reply, and never match for a new message. This would
> allow (current) send-hooks and (pseudo-)reply-hooks to be mixed freely.
That seems like a good solution too.
Mikko
--
// Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/
// The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator /
// Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs /
The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant.
