Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ctrsol!emory!ogicse!schaefer
From: schaefer@ogicse.ogc.edu (Barton E. Schaefer)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.mush
Subject: Re: included messages
Message-ID: <5986@ogicse.ogc.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 89 01:50:27 GMT
References: <4374@ur-cc.UUCP> <5975@ogicse.ogc.edu> <1867@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Reply-To: schaefer@ogicse.UUCP (Barton E. Schaefer)
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 24

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."