[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Documenting @folder WAS Re: relative message numbers?
From: |
David Levine |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Documenting @folder WAS Re: relative message numbers? |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:42:06 -0600 |
> >Is `scan +/tmp/foo' documented anywhere, i.e. the ability to treat any
> >directory as a folder, not just one under Path? And address@hidden' after
> >that..
> Doh. Was planned but slipped my mind. Here are revised versions.
>
> 1) Insert into nmh.1 near:
>
> Commands which take a message number as an argument ( scan, show,
> repl,
How's this:
Commands which take a folder name (inc, refile, scan, sortm, ...)
accept the folder name in two formats: "+folder" or "@folder".
"+folder" specifies a folder underneath the Path defined in your pro-
file; e.g., with the usual "Path: Mail", "+folder" tells nmh to use
"Mail/folder". "@folder" specifies a path relative to the current
folder specified in your "context" file; e.g., with "Current-Folder:
inbox", and the same profile, "@folder" tells nmh to use
"Mail/inbox/folder". If folder begins with "." or "/" when using
"+folder", the folder is interpreted as a specific path to a directory
on the filesystem rather than a relative folder location. For example,
scan +. scans the current directory
scan +../<dir> scans the named sibling directory
refile +/tmp refiles into the /tmp directory
Lyndon, please let me know if I need to correct any formatting.
(Or, it's committed if you want to.)
Also, I plan to change "+folder" to "+folder|@folder" in synopses.
David
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Documenting @folder WAS Re: relative message numbers?,
David Levine <=