After incorporating input from Andreas and Graham and thinking some
more about this, here's what I'd like to do:
If there are no objections, I'd like to upload Mail::TieFolder and
Mail::Tiefolder::mh to PAUSE sometime in the next few days. The code
runs clean right now (43 regression tests...)
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 02:49:11PM -0800, Steve Traugott wrote:
> Other thoughts about this... What I'd really like to do is start
> Mail::Tie::* as a tree of similarly tied interfaces to common
> mailboxes -- i.e. Mail::Tie::mbox, Mail::Tie::IMAP, etc. The only
> drawback I can see is that that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas J. Koenig) wrote:
> Steve Traugott <[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> > I've got an API module for interacting with MH mail folders via a tied
> > hash -- it's attached for reference.
>
> > Question is name -- which of the following do folks prefer?
>
> > Mail::T
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 01:20:34 -0800, Steve Traugott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I've got an API module for interacting with MH mail folders via a tied
> hash -- it's attached for reference.
> Question is name -- which of the following do folks prefer?
> Mail::Tie::mh
> Ma
I've got an API module for interacting with MH mail folders via a tied
hash -- it's attached for reference.
Question is name -- which of the following do folks prefer?
Mail::Tie::mh
Mail::TieMH
Tie::MH
...any others?
Steve
package Mail::Tie::mh;
require 5.005_
