On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 14:21 -0700, Ned Freed wrote:
I think the only sensible thing is for deleteheader to act immediately and
renumber.
agreed.
We also need to specify how addheader interacts with deleteheader. The
following should be essentially a no-op IMO:
require "editheader";
addheader "X-test" "whatever";
deleteheader :index 1 "X-Test"
yes.
A couple of other issues occured to me while looking at this general area.
First, we need to
specify what happens if the comparator or match-type arguments are present in
deleteheader but no value-pattern(s) is(are) specified. I suggest saying that
the comparator and match-type are ignored in this case.
I don't think it needs spelling out, but I won't object either.
We also need to specify what happens if :last is specified in deleteheader
without :index. I suggest saying that it will be ignored. The alternative is
for it to assume an index of 1, but clarity should trump having a more concise
way of specifying "delete the last field"
I think that's a syntax error according to the draft. if :index <n>
and :last were independently optional, I would agree with your analysis.
--
Kjetil T.