Re: [PATCH] wip: change ISSPACE to use ascii whitespace check.

Alejandro Colomar via Mutt-dev <[email protected]> Thu, 19 Feb 2026 15:19:54 +0100

Newsgroups	gmane.mail.mutt.devel
Message-ID	<aZcbOkbSrbMiZ3-D@devuan>

On 2026-02-19T15:16:06+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
> 
> On 2026-02-19T20:49:59+0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 08:30:56PM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > > I'm not dead set against it, but I've never thought the macros or naming
> > > were confusing.
> > > 
> > > Making the implementation of each the same seems like a good idea, but I
> > > think it would be a shame to get ride of the skip_xxx() and is_xxx()
> > > macros.  To me they make the code more readable, not less.
> > 
> > I will add that veering into needing to implement our own strchrnul() and
> > using not-yet standardized C constructs like '?:' feel like it's going a bit
> > too far though, for a minor cleanup.  Mutt moves slowly, and still is meant
> > to work on (somewhat) older systems.
> 
> Sure; I was just floating ideas.  We can incorporate them slowly, to
> make sure users can still use mutt(1).

Something I'd like to see, though, is explicit mention of the kind of
white space in the names.  It'd be good to have

        #define MUTT_CTYPE_SPACE_C      " \t\n\v\f\r"  // [:space:]
        #define MUTT_CTYPE_RFC5322_FWS  " \t\r\n"   // 'FWS' (3.2.2.)

	isspace_c()            // C-locale white space
	isspace_rfc5322_fws()  // RFC5322 3.2.2. 'FWS'
	...

And similar names for skipws_c(), skipws_rfc5322_fws(), ...

Every time I see a skipws() variant, I wonder what kind of white space
it skips.  That would the the most important improvement I'd see in
handling of white space.


Cheers,
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)