[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers
From: |
David Levine |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:01:12 -0400 |
Ralph wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> > as a convenience feature when typing negative offsets, "foo:-n" and
> > "foo=-n" can be entered as "foo::n" and "foo==n" respectively.
>
> I dislike this. Must be my preference for Python's `one way to do it'
> over Perl's `there must still be one more way we haven't added yet'.
> :-)
Agreed. In general, I think it's best to minimize the
feature set, and therefore testing and documentation. And
it helps reduce confusion between what might some day be
similar features given some other enhancement. And reduce
the likelihood of unintended interactions between features,
always a concern with nmh.
David
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Paul Fox, 2013/04/08
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Paul Fox, 2013/04/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Paul Fox, 2013/04/17
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Ken Hornstein, 2013/04/17
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Paul Fox, 2013/04/17
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Ken Hornstein, 2013/04/18
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Paul Fox, 2013/04/18
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Ken Hornstein, 2013/04/18
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Ralph Corderoy, 2013/04/18
Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, David Levine, 2013/04/17
Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers,
David Levine <=