[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] relative message numbers?
From: |
Paul Fox |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] relative message numbers? |
Date: |
Sun, 14 Oct 2012 17:48:57 -0400 |
jerrad wrote:
> I don't really understand how relative numbers are useful, but if
> they are to be introduced why not use the same signifier as for
> folders? i.e; @
>
> address@hidden = cur+2 address@hidden = cur-4
>
> This could also prevent some confusion as to why we are using
> something with a clear meaning (+) for such an odd purpose...
i'm not sure i see why '+' is an odd character to use for addition.
i'm also not sure how '@' relates to folders. neither the mh nor
the folder man page mentions such a relationship.
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
useful.
mainly i wanted to make sure i wasn't missing some simple trick that
already exists that would accomplish what i'm looking for. it's not
that big a deal -- i can create a wrapper of some sort to accomplish
it.
paul
=---------------------
paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 56.8 degrees)
Re: [Nmh-workers] relative message numbers?, David Levine, 2012/10/14