Joel Reicher <joel@panacea.null.org> writes:
If everyone's happy with "+" meaning the folder root and "@" meaning
the current folder and anything following being interpreted the same
as any pathspec would be then I'll clean up the code and try to get
around to making sure it's documented properly too.
NO. I'm not quite happy with that, in that I would prefer
that
+ foobar
mean the same thing as +foobar. That way wild card expansion in shell scripts
and file name completion in interactive shells would be much easier.
OK, that brings us back to the original discussion. :) Is "+" without
anything immediately following a folderspec in its own right? Norman
says no, and I think I agree with him, chiefly because the folder root
could still be referenced with "+." (once I fix the bugs).
Cheers,
- Joel
P.S. Norman, I replied to your two-month old message about using "file -i"
just recently, but your mailserver rejects any email coming from mine. If
this list doesn't send duplicates to you then you might not have seen my
reply at all.
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers