Date:Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:01:12 -0600
From:Neil W Rickert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The notation "+folder" for identifying a mail folder goes back at
| least to ucbmail (/usr/ucb/Mail or /usr/ucb/mail or emulated by
| mailx).
I wouldn
On February 27, 2007, Norman Shapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would also argue that the +folderName syntax for designating a file name is
> strange and unique to mh. If, at the time is was first conceived (by Bruce
> Borden) I had thought it through and had I realized that decades later p
Norman Shapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Feb 27, 2007:
>I would also argue that the +folderName syntax for designating a file name is
>strange and unique to mh.
The notation "+folder" for identifying a mail folder goes back at
least to ucbmail (/usr/ucb/Mail or /usr/ucb/mail or emulated by
ma
Joel Reicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Norm sayeth:
>> >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 script
>> s
>> >and file name completion in interactive shells would be mu
>I've looked at the code now and it's quite clear that the meaning of
>a folderspec beginning with either dot or double dot is relative to
>the current working directory, not the Path: profile entry.
I've not used these forms of + (nobody on the list seems to use these
[odd] undocumented constructs
I've looked at the code now and it's quite clear that the meaning of
a folderspec beginning with either dot or double dot is relative to
the current working directory, not the Path: profile entry.
Does anyone know why or have thoughts on whether these semantics should
be kept? It seems very delibe
