Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers

[norm]

Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> writes:

> 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?

Then name+n is the nth message of name; name_n is the nth to last message of 
name.(1 based ordinals. That is, name+1 is the first message of name and name_1 
is the last message of name).

If name has fewer than n messages then I would prefer an abort with error 
message. Paul Fox would, I gather, prefer a semantics where name+n and name_n 
are always meaningful.

    Norman Shapiro