ralph wrote:
Hi Paul,
it became clear that the range compression was an impediment. Now
that I've added the ability to explicitly ask "is message 4 part of
sequence foo", range compression isn't really an issue, but it feels
like we should be able to control it. I'd kind of like to add
-terse/-noterse:
-range/-norange. :-)
I thought of that too, as a close second to -terse/-noterse. And it's
more specific. I'd be happy with that, if others prefer it.
(I'd also love to fix the old bug that causes "9 10" to be displayed as
"9-10", but I probably shouldn't. Someone probably relies on it.)
I wasn't aware it was a bug, more an easy way to spot singletons;
messages without an adjacent neighbour in the sequence.
Thanks. That might make me feel better about it. I'd never write an
adjacent pair as a range myself, so I find it jarring, and it makes it
look like there's something in between. It's hard to believe it wasn't
intentional, though, given that it's a two line fix.
paul
=----------------------
paul fox, pgf@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 67.5 degrees)