[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers
From: |
Ralph Corderoy |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers |
Date: |
Sun, 07 Apr 2013 19:29:33 +0100 |
Hi Bill,
> > 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).
>
> Hey Norm, how is this useful? I can't see anyone manually referring to
> the nth item in a sequence on the command line. The point of a
> sequence is that you don't have to know the constituents. Maybe you
> have a use case.
Many times an hour I do `-sub foo' or something else, e.g. -from, where
~/bin/-sub does a pick and scan, and then spot the one I'm interested in
is the third from the top and do `s 3141', with ~/bin/s being show. I'd
much rather do `s lp+3' as my muscles' memory is adept at `s lp' already
and the `+' followed by the, typically single, digit would come quickly.
Note, I don't have to count to know it's the third, I just know, just as
old-time vi(1) users know it's 7dd that's needed at a glance. Given it
may be easier to see it's five from the end an `s lp_5' mechanism is
required.
IIRC, `foo-bar' isn't valid for sequence names, even if foo and bar are
both single-message sequences? If so, it would seem `-' is available
for `foo-5'. I can see that could be confusing though. As a dc(1)
user, I'm happy with `_'. `~' suggests something more fuzzy and
approximate to me, e.g. awk's regexp matching operator, so would perhaps
be better suited to some other use in the future.
Cheers, Ralph.
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Threads, (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Threads, epg, 2013/04/08
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Threads, Eric Gillespie, 2013/04/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Bill Wohler, 2013/04/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/04/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Bill Wohler, 2013/04/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/04/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers,
Ralph Corderoy <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Johan Viklund, 2013/04/08
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Ralph Corderoy, 2013/04/08
Re: [Nmh-workers] Relative Message Numbers, Paul Fox, 2013/04/02
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