Re: [Nmh-workers] The invisible mail folder

[Joel Reicher]

> Joel Reicher <address@hidden> writes:
> >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
> that
> 
>     + 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.

OK, that brings us back to the original discussion. :) Is "+" without
anything immediately following a folderspec in its own right? Norman
says no, and I think I agree with him, chiefly because the folder root
could still be referenced with "+." (once I fix the bugs).

Cheers,

        - Joel

P.S. Norman, I replied to your two-month old message about using "file -i"
just recently, but your mailserver rejects any email coming from mine. If
this list doesn't send duplicates to you then you might not have seen my
reply at all.