[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers

From: Ken Hornstein
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:57:25 -0400

>A while back, there was a discussion about
>relative message numbers. For example,
>But I don't believe there was a resolution. Was there?
>If foobar is a message sequence then something like forbar+3, for the
>third message of foobar, would make my life a bit easier.

I think Paul Fox accurately summed up the consensus view on that

  but i admit:  i've thought about this quite a bit in the past, and
  have never come up with syntax that was backward compatible,
  meaningful, and enough faster to type than the digits themselves to be

I don't think the situation has changed.  Right now anything with a
"-" in it counts as a range, so there's that to think about.

>Even better, would be to allow forbar+3,4 and foobar forbar+3-5. Then,
>recursively, and perhaps a bit fancifully, since forbar+3-5 is a
>message sequence, forbar+3-5+2 would be meaningful. If foobar has had a
>least four messages it would denote the fourth messages of foobar.

I have to ask: is that easier?  I mean, really?  Robert has given a
reasonable alternative.


reply via email to

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