Re: recent changes

Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
> Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> > I wonder if all config file options are configurable via the command
> > line. I run several mail archives and don't particularily like the
> > idea to write a config file for each and every archive. Up to now
> > I only use a few options so the current commandline arguments are
> > sufficient for me.
> >
> > However, things may changes and I wonder if there should be an option
> > like --config "hm_foo=bar" while the argument to --config is parsed
> > like each line in the config file.
>
> I don't see a reason -not- to have this option (besides the pain staking
> parsing of each --config option that has to be made), except, how many people would

Should not be a problem since getopt should support multiple appearences and there is a configParse(line) routine.

> actually benefit from this? I can see it coming in handy yes, but at the same
> time, what's wrong with having one generic config file, and reference that file
> each time (instead of having a different config file for each archive - unless each
> archive is so different from the other?)

Well, at least the title and directory are different. I don't grok the code so I don't know what happens if I'm mixing commandline options and config files.

Just wondering around while reading old mails,

        Joey

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it.  -- Donald E. Knuth