norm@dad.org writes:
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).
Hey Norm, how is this useful? I can't see anyone manually referring to
the nth item in a sequence on the command line. The point of a sequence
is that you don't have to know the constituents. Maybe you have a use
case.
If this is for programmatic use, it seems that something like
for i in $(mark -list -sequence cur | cut -f 1 -d " " --complement); do
scan $i;
done
would be clearer.
Saaay, it just occurred to me. Maybe we should adopt MH-E's syntax.
Norm, please check out MH-E ranges [1]. While it's not identical to your
specification, it sure is nifty for MH-E users. If this works for you,
maybe applying the same syntax to nmh would mean that many more users
would be more familiar with the syntax than with _.
http://mh-e.sourceforge.net/manual/html/Ranges.html
--
Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com> aka <Bill.Wohler@nasa.gov>
http://www.newt.com/wohler/
GnuPG ID:610BD9AD
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers