[nail-devel] Fwd: Re: patch to make date in s-nail behave like ls -l

[Steffen D. N. <sd...@gm...>]

Doesn't seem to make it through to the list ?

-------- Original Message --------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:53:01 +0100
From: Steffen "Daode" Nurpmeso <sd...@gm...>
To: "Stephen Isard" <3s9...@sn...>
Cc: nai...@li...
Subject: Re: [nail-devel] patch to make date in s-nail behave like ls -l

Hello,

"Stephen Isard" <3s9...@sn...> wrote:
 |Hello,
 |
 |I sometimes use mailx to view archives of old mail messages and in that 
 |situation I would prefer the date to be displayed the way unix "ls -l"
 |does it, giving the year instead of the time of day for messages more 
 |than six months old.  I have attached a patch that has this effect if 
 |the variable date_like_ls is set.  I have only been able to test it on 
 |my own message archives, so there may be cases I haven't considered.

I really like the idea, but i think we should then follow the
POSIX standard regarding 'ls -l':

  The <date and time> field shall contain the appropriate date and
  timestamp of when the file was last modified. In the POSIX
  locale, the field shall be the equivalent of the output of the
  following date command:

  date "+%b %e %H:%M"

  if the file has been modified in the last six months, or:

  date "+%b %e %Y"

  (where two <space> characters are used between %e and %Y ) if
  the file has not been modified in the last six months or if the
  modification date is in the future

And the suggested variable name doesn't fit into what we yet have,
so it should be *date-like-ls* instead -- and, while nagging,
maybe *date-like-ls-l* sounds and looks odd, but since it
describes exactly what it is about i prefer that one.
This will be in 14.1.

 |Btw, the s-nail I pulled from git about ten days ago segfaults when I 
 |give the "set" command with no arguments.

I tried all that i could imagine, but could not reproduce that.
(If you're bothered about the UNCONST("") in there, be assured
that the entire variable layer treats the empty string as
a special condition, both for allocating and for freeing.  I don't
like that either, but it seems to origin in Berkeley Mail.)
Any hints are welcome.

Thank you!

 |Best regards,
 |
 |Stephen Isard

--steffen