[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?
--Ken
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Paul Fox, 2013/04/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers,
Ken Hornstein <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, norm, 2013/04/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Bill Wohler, 2013/04/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Paul Fox, 2013/04/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Jerrad Pierce, 2013/04/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Paul Fox, 2013/04/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Jerrad Pierce, 2013/04/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Paul Fox, 2013/04/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Valdis . Kletnieks, 2013/04/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Ken Hornstein, 2013/04/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/04/03