[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] The invisible mail folder

From: Norman Shapiro
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] The invisible mail folder
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:46:44 -0800

Joel Reicher <address@hidden> writes:
>>     Date:        Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:07:47 +1100
>>     From:        Joel Reicher <address@hidden>
>>     Message-ID:  <address@hidden>
>>   | In fact, there looks to be a host of inconsistent behaviour. "+/" will
>>   | scan the root *directory*. "+.." does *not* scan the directory above
>>   | the folder root, but rather the directory above that. "+." scans the
>>   | directory above the folder root.
>> That's not what I see.   scan +. for me scans the current folder,
>> scan +.. scans the parent of the current folder.   scan +/ certainly
>> attempts to scan the root directory, but that's no different than
>> scan +/any/absolute/path which is needed when you want to look in
>> someone else's MH folders (assuming, of course, that you have permission).
>> ps: I am using a slightly old version of nmh ...
>>   scan -- nmh-1.0.4 [compiled on lilac.noi.kre.to at Sat Jan 24 12:50:44 UTC
>> 2004]
>I'm using the CVS code, and I made some changes to the folder path
>processing a while ago, so it's more than likely the inconsistent
>behaviour has been introduced (by me) since 1.0.4.
>If everyone's happy with "+" meaning the folder root and "@" meaning
>the current folder and anything following being interpreted the same
>as any pathspec would be then I'll clean up the code and try to get
>around to making sure it's documented properly too.

NO. I'm not quite happy with that, in that I would prefer

    + foobar

mean the same thing as +foobar. That way wild card expansion in shell scripts
and file name completion in interactive shells would be much easier.

    Norman Shapiro
    798 Barron Avenue
    Palo Alto CA 94306-3109
    (650) 565-8215

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]