On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 14:21 -0700, Ned Freed wrote:
...
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.
Right. SMI's implementation has always considered
deleteheader :last "foo";
to be a syntax error, as reflected in the grammar.
Philip Guenther