>A while back, there was a discussion about >relative message numbers. For example, >http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2012-10/msg00048.html. >But I don't believe there was a resolution. Was there? > >If foobar is a message sequence then something like forbar+3, for the >third message of foobar, would make my life a bit easier.
I think Paul Fox accurately summed up the consensus view on that thread: but i admit: i've thought about this quite a bit in the past, and have never come up with syntax that was backward compatible, meaningful, and enough faster to type than the digits themselves to be useful. I don't think the situation has changed. Right now anything with a "-" in it counts as a range, so there's that to think about. >Even better, would be to allow forbar+3,4 and foobar forbar+3-5. Then, >recursively, and perhaps a bit fancifully, since forbar+3-5 is a >message sequence, forbar+3-5+2 would be meaningful. If foobar has had a >least four messages it would denote the fourth messages of foobar. I have to ask: is that easier? I mean, really? Robert has given a reasonable alternative. --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
