Re: check if message is in a particular sequence?

[Paul Fox]

ralph wrote:
 > Hi Paul,
 > 
 > > it became clear that the range compression was an impediment.  Now
 > > that I've added the ability to explicitly ask "is message 4 part of
 > > sequence foo", range compression isn't really an issue, but it feels
 > > like we should be able to control it.  I'd kind of like to add
 > > -terse/-noterse:
 > 
 > -range/-norange.  :-)

I thought of that too, as a close second to -terse/-noterse.  And it's
more specific.  I'd be happy with that, if others prefer it.

 > 
 > > (I'd also love to fix the old bug that causes "9 10" to be displayed as
 > > "9-10", but I probably shouldn't.  Someone probably relies on it.)
 > 
 > I wasn't aware it was a bug, more an easy way to spot singletons;
 > messages without an adjacent neighbour in the sequence.

Thanks.  That might make me feel better about it.  I'd never write an
adjacent pair as a range myself, so I find it jarring, and it makes it
look like there's something in between.  It's hard to believe it wasn't
intentional, though, given that it's a two line fix.

paul
=----------------------
paul fox, pgf@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 67.5 degrees)