Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> [Changed subject]
[jc: culled CC addresses]
> I'd expect:
>
> Foo <foo@xxxxxxxxxxx> Bar
>
> To be an alias/shorthand for:
>
> Foo <foo@xxxxxxxxxxx> Bar <foo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
OK.
> More annoying is that this:
>
> New <foo@xxxxxxxxxxx> <bar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> <foo@xxxxxxxxxxx> <zar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Doesn't mean the same as:
> ...
> I.e. I'd expect the name to map to the empty string, *unless* we saw an
> earlier address, i.e. just as we do for the first bar -> foo line (we
> map it to a name of "New", we don't map it to an empty name).
You expect the first one to map (anyname, <bar@xxxxxxxxxxx>) to
("New", <foo@xxxxxxxxxxx>) and you describe the second one does not
map the human-readable part to "New", but it is unclear what the
code does, or why you expect it to map to "" (or what your
expectation is, for that matter, exactly---do you want an empty
string, or do you want "New", or something else???).
FWIW, if we were designing it from scratch, I'd expect the second
one to map (anyname, <zar@xxxxxxxxxxx>) to ($1, <foo@xxxxxxxxxxx>),
keeping the human-readable part as-is and only map the e-mail part.
Or do you expect that when these two entries appear together, the
first entry with "New" is carried over to the second entry?
> Doing that would be strictly backwards compatible, i.e. now we'll
> entirely ignore the 3rd E-Mail address. It does mean we also
> accidentally support things like:
>
> New <foo@xxxxxxxxxxx> <bar@xxxxxxxxxxx> # A comment, because we ignore everything after the 2nd address
>
> But don't tell anyone I told you that :) But that is something that
> might technically have inadvertently closed the door to future syntax
> extensions, but we could probably do them anyway, or at worst have some
> heuristic.
I vaguely recall that it was not an accident but a deliberate
feature to allow comments, but don't tell anyone I told you that.
