Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers

[Paul Fox]

jerrad wrote:
 > >digit message numbers.  believe me, "p last_4" is much less error
 > >prone than "p 365530".
 > Sorry, I wasn't clear. The error-proneness wasn't due to typing,
 > but in gauging which line of the displayed sequence was the message
 > you cared about. Although I suppose those who love this mode of
 > specifying messages might develop a scan format file that includes
 > sequence indices in the output...

oh, i see.  yes -- i only find myself wishing for it for very small
values of 'n'.

----------------------
 paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 40.6 degrees)