* Tue Oct 28 2008 TAKAHASHI Tamotsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What about post-detect, instead of pre-detect?
Oh, but my patch didn't allow
"mutt -a first.dat -a second.dat [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
(the second file was treated as an address).
If you need to allow multiple occurence of "-a",
post-detection i
On 2008-10-28 16:47:17 +0900, TAKAHASHI Tamotsu wrote:
> Here is another patch, to adjust
> documentation instead of implementation.
That's not quite correct. The "--" is needed only when there are
other arguments. It is optional at the end, e.g.:
mutt -a file1 file2
--
Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAI
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 01:47:33PM +0900, TAKAHASHI Tamotsu wrote:
> * Thu Oct 23 2008 Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Aron Griffis wrote: [Thu Oct 23 2008, 10:07:02AM EDT]
> > > What OS is this? There are some patches recently in mutt that
> > > affect cmdline processing, but your example w
Derek Martin wrote: [Tue Oct 28 2008, 03:20:02PM EDT]
> I think, and have always thought, that this is a Bad Thing(tm),
> making parsing Mutt's command line needlessly complicated. It
> seems much more sensible to me that Mutt's command line should
> only allow one type of object to be listed wit
On Tuesday, October 28 at 03:42 PM, quoth Aron Griffis:
An alternative would be to add an attach-glob option to mutt, which
mutt would then expand internally, for example:
mutt -g \*.jpg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More ideas? Dissenting opinions?
What about using the same sort of parsing that's u
* Tue Oct 28 2008 Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 2008-10-28 16:47:17 +0900, TAKAHASHI Tamotsu wrote:
> > Here is another patch, to adjust
> > documentation instead of implementation.
>
> That's not quite correct. The "--" is needed only when there are
> other arguments. It is optional at
> I think the point of the current behavior is to be able to do
> things like this:
>
> mutt -a *.jpg -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Faced with this need in the past, I've gone with an enclosure notation:
mutt -a { *.jpg } [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you're using getopt, you still need to require -a
On 28Oct2008 17:07, David Champion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > I think the point of the current behavior is to be able to do
| > things like this:
| > mutt -a *.jpg -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| Faced with this need in the past, I've gone with an enclosure notation:
|
| mutt -a { *.jpg }
