Re: [Nmh-workers] Documenting @folder WAS Re: relative messagenumbers?

[David Levine]

Ralph wrote:

> That's incorrect, corrected later.  Might be nicer to explain the warty
> truth from the off.  How about

Thanks, we now have:

  Commands that take a folder name (inc, refile, scan,  ...)  accept  the
  folder  name  in  two formats:  "+folder" or "@folder".  In both cases,
  "folder" can be a "/"-separated path, e.g. "foo/bar".  "+folder" speci-
  fies  a  directory  path to a folder.  If "folder" starts with "/" then
  it's an absolute path from the root directory.  If it is "."  or  "..",
  or starts with "./" or "../", then it's relative to the current working
  directory.  Otherwise it's relative to mh-profile(5)'s "Path", i.e.  as
  given by `mhpath +`.  "@folder" is a shorthand for "+curfolder/folder";
  it's a relative path from the current folder.  "curfolder" is given  by
  `mhpath`.  For example, assuming a Path profile component of Mail,

  scan +inbox     scans $HOME/Mail/inbox
  scan +work/todo scans $HOME/Mail/work/todo
  scan @todo      scans $HOME/Mail/work/todo, if current folder is +work
  refile @../done refiles  to $HOME/Mail/work/done, if the current folder
                  is +work/todo
  scan +/tmp      scans /tmp
  scan +.         scans the current directory
  refile @.       refiles current message to end of current folder.

> Having the examples indented would be nice.

Also, there's another set of examples in the same man page that
isn't indented.  I'm not about to try *roff formatting.  Lyndon,
the latest has been committed if you want.

> > Also, I plan to change "+folder" to "+folder|@folder" in synopses.
> 
> How about [+|@]folder since many synopses are already wordy.

That was my first thought, too.  But given the notation, that
should really mean that "folder" is also accepted.  How about
(+|@)folder ?

David