[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers
From: |
Paul Fox |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:46:17 -0400 |
david wrote:
> 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.
okay. i've removed the "stuttered" syntax support, and pushed the
changes.
enjoy.
paul
----------------------
paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 61.0 degrees)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, (continued)
- 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, 2013/04/18