Re: [Nmh-workers] The invisible mail folder

[David Levine]

Joel writes:

> > Joel Reicher <address@hidden> 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 
______________________________________________________________________