Joel writes: > > Joel Reicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >If everyone's happy with "+" meaning the folder root and "@" meaning > > >the current folder and anything following being interpreted the same > > >as any pathspec would be then I'll clean up the code and try to get > > >around to making sure it's documented properly too. > > > > NO. I'm not quite happy with that, in that I would prefer > > that > > > > + foobar > > > > mean the same thing as +foobar. That way wild card expansion in shell scrip > ts > > and file name completion in interactive shells would be much easier. > > OK, that brings us back to the original discussion. :) Is "+" without > anything immediately following a folderspec in its own right? Norman > says no, and I think I agree with him, chiefly because the folder root > could still be referenced with "+." (once I fix the bugs).
I agree. Anything that helps users avoid the unexpected result of "refile +" is good. David > Cheers, > > - Joel > > P.S. Norman, I replied to your two-month old message about using "file -i" > just recently, but your mailserver rejects any email coming from mine. If > this list doesn't send duplicates to you then you might not have seen my > reply at all. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
