ken wrote: > >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 foobar+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.
so, i was using 'dc' the other day (is there anything else?), and for the first time in a while, i had to enter a negative number. HP solved this problem on their calculators with a "CHS" (change sign") button, but the dc authors opted to require the use of the '_' to introduce a negative number. in the face of that long-established and well-recognized precedent :-), how would people feel about this change: The specification “name+n” designates a single message, namely the `n'th message after `name' (or the last message, if not enough messages exist). One might expect the `n'th message prior to `name' to be spec‐ ified by “name-n”, but that syntax denotes a range. Therefore, the character `_' is used instead: “name_n” designates the `n'th message before `name' (or the first message if not enough messages exist). i've implemented the above, to see how it "feels" (which is "okay"). i can make the corresponding changes for "foobar+3" and "foobar_2" if folks think it's reasonable. paul ---------------------- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 50.2 degrees) _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers