Minor nit; your character set was "utf8", but technically it's supposed
to be "utf-8" (with the dash). Ralph also might be getting this wrong,
I keep meaning to mention that. Anyway ...
in the face of that long-established and well-recognized precedent :-),
how would people feel about this change:
The specification “name+n” designates a single message, namely the
`n'th message after `name' (or the last message, if not enough messages
exist). One might expect the `n'th message prior to `name' to be spec‐
ified by “name-n”, but that syntax denotes a range. Therefore, the
character `_' is used instead: “name_n” designates the `n'th message
before `name' (or the first message if not enough messages exist).
i've implemented the above, to see how it "feels" (which is "okay").
i can make the corresponding changes for "foobar+3" and "foobar_2" if
folks think it's reasonable.
Hm. I'm torn. So, it looks like it's okay in terms of syntax; "_" is
not a valid character in a sequence. But what are the semantics if
“name” refers to more than one message?
--Ken
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers