nmh-workers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers

2013-04-18 08:10:17
well, i haven't pushed yet, and can certainly go one more round on the
code, and the man pages, and the tests.  ;-) clearly i like it, but
clearly i'll also go with the consensus.  y'all chat about it today,

(it's true that foo=-3 isn't nearly as bad as foo#-3, which was where
we started with this syntax style.  foo##3 was a clear win in that
case, for me at any rate.  when i switched from # to =, i already
had foo==3.)

paul

david wrote:
Ralph wrote:

Hi Paul,

as a convenience feature when typing negative offsets, "foo:-n" and
"foo=-n" can be entered as "foo::n" and "foo==n" respectively.

I dislike this.  Must be my preference for Python's `one way to do it'
over Perl's `there must still be one more way we haven't added yet'.
:-)

Agreed.  In general, I think it's best to minimize the
feature set, and therefore testing and documentation.  And
it helps reduce confusion between what might some day be
similar features given some other enhancement.  And reduce
the likelihood of unintended interactions between features,
always a concern with nmh.

David

_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

----------------------
 paul fox, pgf(_at_)foxharp(_dot_)boston(_dot_)ma(_dot_)us (arlington, ma, 
where it's 51.4 degrees)

_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

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