[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,
>http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2012-10/msg00048.html.
>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
thread:
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.
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.
--Ken