Hello-
Presented for comments is the proposed resolution for
XCU Aardvark 20, as per my action item from the teleconference
of April 8.
XCU Aardvark 20 (mailx, XCU p600, lines 23219-23224) states:
> Problem:
> If a 'next' command follows a 'hold' command in mailx, traditional
> implementations display the next message following the one the 'hold'
> applied to, as if the holded message had been printed. This makes sense
> since the 'hold' usually implies that the user knows what is in the
> message and does not wish to view it again immediately. But the
behavior
> apparently conflicts with POSIX as the description states that the
'next'
> command may only advance if the current message has been written
before,
> which is not the case with 'hold'.
>
> Action:
> Update the description of the 'next' command such that 'hold' makes it
> also advance to the following message.
Here is the original and proposed replacement text for the "next" command:
ORIGINAL:
If the current message has not been written (for example, by the print
command) since mailx started or since any other message was the current
message, behave as if the print command was entered. Otherwise, if there
is an undeleted message after the current message, make it the current
message and behave as if the print command was entered. Otherwise, an
informational message to the effect that there are no further messages in
the mailbox shall be written, followed by the mailx prompt.
SUGGESTED:
If the current message has not been written (for example, by the print
command) since mailx started or since any other message was the current
message, behave as if the print command was entered. Otherwise, if there
is an undeleted message after the current message, make it the current
message and behave as if the print command was entered. Otherwise, an
informational message to the effect that there are no further messages in
the mailbox shall be written, followed by the mailx prompt. Messages
marked "hold" or "preserve" (via the "hold" or "preserve" commands),
including the current message if so marked, are ignored by this command.
-------------------
Mark S. Brown
STSM, UNIX/Linux OS Standards
IBM Systems Group, Linux Technology Center
yyyyy@xxxxxxxxxx
|