Minor nit; your character set was "utf8", but technically it's supposed to be "utf-8" (with the dash). Ralph also might be getting this wrong, I keep meaning to mention that. Anyway ...
>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. Hm. I'm torn. So, it looks like it's okay in terms of syntax; "_" is not a valid character in a sequence. But what are the semantics if “name” refers to more than one message? --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers