Joel Reicher <joel@panacea.null.org> writes:
Norm sayeth:
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 script
s
and file name completion in interactive shells would be much easier.
No, MH semantics shuold be isolated from the shell's and foo + barFolder is
broken.
I think those are two different issues that should not be conflated.
I agree that MH semantics should not be compromised by shell semantics,
but it isn't clear that anything in MH is being compromised by permitting
"+ folder". Quite the reverse, in fact; having those semantics does not
force their use, and is only going to make a (beneficial) difference
to any who want them.
The only problem I can see is if "+ somestring" had somestring being
a sequence name (or message number), and the user actually wanted both
the "+" to mean the folder root, and the "somestring" to mean a message
spec. I think this is so unusual that it's not something we should cater
to.
I would also argue that the +folderName syntax for designating a file name is
strange and unique to mh. If, at the time is was first conceived (by Bruce
Borden) I had thought it through and had I realized that decades later people
would still be using it, I would have vetoed it. Almost all other arguments
syntaxes for doing this either use the --something=fileName syntax and/or a pair
of arguments.
Norman Shapiro
798 Barron Avenue
Palo Alto CA 94306-3109
(650) 565-8215
norm@dad.org
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers