msir@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mark Sirota) (12/05/89)
I am using 6.5.6 6/30/89; I don't know if this has been fixed in the new alpha version, but just in case it hasn't, I want to point it out. I am bothered by the fact that when including a message (with "mail -i" or "~i"), the blank lines at the beginning and end of the body are included. I have always thought of the blank line at the beginning of the body as a delimiter between the headers and body, not as a part of the body. Similarly, the blank line at the end is an end-of-message marker, not part of the body. In particular, if I am replying to a one-line message, I don't want it to look like: On Dec 4, 6:08pm, Josh Sirota writes: > > What do you have on your xmas liast, anyway? > Those first and last blank lines just shouldn't be there. -- Mark Sirota - University of Rochester, Rochester, NY Internet: msir@cc.rochester.edu Bitnet: msir@uordbv.bitnet UUCP: {decvax,harvard,ames,rutgers}!rochester!ur-cc!msir
schaefer@ogicse.ogc.edu (Barton E. Schaefer) (12/05/89)
In article <4374@ur-cc.UUCP> Mark Sirota <msir@cc.rochester.edu> writes: } I am using 6.5.6 6/30/89; I don't know if this has been fixed in the new } alpha version, but just in case it hasn't, I want to point it out. } } I am bothered by the fact that when including a message (with "mail -i" or } "~i"), the blank lines at the beginning and end of the body are included. It hasn't exactly been fixed, but it's easier to change than it was. The "write" command no longer includes the leading and trailing blank lines, but special dispensation was made to do keep them in ~i. Getting rid of them would actually *remove* a special case. However, at least in the case of the leading blank line, I actually prefer to have it there, separating $pre_indent_str from the message body, but of course a newline can be forced into $pre_indent_str. Anybody else want to hazard an opinion on this? } I have always thought of the blank line at the beginning of the body as a } delimiter between the headers and body, not as a part of the body. } Similarly, the blank line at the end is an end-of-message marker, not part } of the body. Correct. Although included text is implemented by keeping the leading and trailing blank lines, the original feeling was that it looked best that way -- they would have have been added if they weren't already there. So it isn't really a case of those being considered "part of the body". } In particular, if I am replying to a one-line message, I don't want it But what proportion of your replies with included text are to one-liners? ____________ As long as I'm posting anyway, I should announce that my address has changed again, just enough to be confusing. The name of the school I attend has officially changed from Oregon Graduate Center to Oregon Graduate Institute, and correspondingly, the hostname and domain names of the E-mail gateway have also changed. I am now reached as schaefer@cse.ogi.edu {harvard,rutgers}!ogicse!schaefer My signature has been hinting at that for a while, but now the changes have actually gone into effect. -- Bart Schaefer "I seem to have run into a novel problem with the electronic mail. My computer's demanding an electronic female." schaefer@cse.ogi.edu (used to be cse.ogc.edu) "Preferably brunette."
msir@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mark Sirota) (12/06/89)
In article <5975@ogicse.ogc.edu> schaefer@ogicse.UUCP (Barton E. Schaefer) writes: >In article <4374@ur-cc.UUCP> Mark Sirota <msir@cc.rochester.edu> writes: >> I am bothered by the fact that when including a message (with "mail -i" or >> "~i"), the blank lines at the beginning and end of the body are included. > > The "write" command no longer includes the leading and trailing blank > lines, but special dispensation was made to do keep them in ~i. Getting > rid of them would actually *remove* a special case. > > However, at least in the case of the leading blank line, I actually prefer > to have it there, separating $pre_indent_str from the message body, but of > course a newline can be forced into $pre_indent_str. > > Although included text is implemented by keeping the leading and trailing > blank lines, the original feeling was that it looked best that way -- they > would have have been added if they weren't already there. This discussion centers somewhat around what looks best, which is, of course, a silly argument to have. However, since there is a way to give the users the choice rather than deciding it for them, and since doing so would actually simplify the code, it seems clear to me what the proper action is. On the looks issue, I see your point on the leading blank line separating the body from $pre_indent_str. However, what if you didn't have a $pre_indent_str? It would look kinda silly then, don't you think? As for the trailing blank line, I think it's useless. (Maybe if I used $post_indent_str I wouldn't think so, but then I could always add it...) My first paragraph in this article is much better separated from the included text than it would be with a line beginning with '>', IMHO. -- Mark Sirota - University of Rochester, Rochester, NY Internet: msir@cc.rochester.edu Bitnet: msir@uordbv.bitnet UUCP: {decvax,harvard,ames,rutgers}!rochester!ur-cc!msir
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (12/06/89)
Actually I think it's correct the way it is. Better that the included text be offset slightly from the new than that they run together when you didn't intend it. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
schaefer@ogicse.ogc.edu (Barton E. Schaefer) (12/06/89)
In article <1867@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes: } Actually I think it's correct the way it is. Better that the included } text be offset slightly from the new than that they run together when } you didn't intend it. Aha! This reminds me of the primary reason that the blank lines were included (how could I possibly have forgotten?) Consider: mush> mail -i 2,4,7 Without the inclusion of the blank lines, the text of the three included messages runs together indistiguishably. HOWEVER, Dan has already informed me that he prefers that the blank lines be omitted. SO, it will change in this way: A blank line WITHOUT any indent_str prefixing it will be included between the texts of each pair of included messages. Does that make everyone happy? -- Bart Schaefer "I seem to have run into a novel problem with the electronic mail. My computer's demanding an electronic female." schaefer@cse.ogi.edu (used to be cse.ogc.edu) "Preferably brunette."