nmh-workers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers

2013-04-02 07:51:33
Ken Hornstein <kenh@pobox.com> writes:

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?

Then name+n is the nth message of name; name_n is the nth to last message of 
name.(1 based ordinals. That is, name+1 is the first message of name and name_1 
is the last message of name).

If name has fewer than n messages then I would prefer an abort with error 
message. Paul Fox would, I gather, prefer a semantics where name+n and name_n 
are always meaningful.

    Norman Shapiro

_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>