[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: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:09:32 -0400

Minor nit; your character set was "utf8", but technically it's supposed
to be "utf-8" (with the dash).  Ralph also might be getting this wrong,
I keep meaning to mention that.  Anyway ...

>in the face of that long-established and well-recognized precedent :-),
>how would people feel about this change:
>   The  specification  “name+n”  designates  a  single message, namely the
>   `n'th message after `name' (or the last message, if not enough messages
>   exist).  One might expect the `n'th message prior to `name' to be spec‐
>   ified by “name-n”, but that syntax denotes  a  range.   Therefore,  the
>   character  `_'  is used instead:  “name_n” designates the `n'th message
>   before `name' (or the first message if not enough messages exist).
>i've implemented the above, to see how it "feels" (which is "okay"). 
>i can make the corresponding changes for "foobar+3" and "foobar_2" if
>folks think it's reasonable.

Hm.  I'm torn.  So, it looks like it's okay in terms of syntax; "_" is
not a valid character in a sequence.  But what are the semantics if
“name” refers to more than one message?


reply via email to

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