> > i want to isolate the thread, and then be able to prev and next
> > through it. so i think your method might be okay, if there were
> > a "-seq" option to prev and next, which meant "next in sequence".
>
> I'm not following all of this threading discussion completely
> (lots of other work to do this morning, and the email's flying!).
> But can't this already be done with plain old:
>
> show seqname:next
> show seqname:prev
whoa. i _am_ learning things today. that's _great_! i had no
idea you could do that. this increases the usefulness of
sequences tenfold. thanks!
and, now that i've (re?)read the mh-sequences(5) man page, i also
know about
Previous-Sequence: pseq
which solves my other long-standing annoyance about mh sequences:
if i do "show unseen" i can't then do "rmm unseen", because, of
course, they're no longer unseen. but i can now do "rmm pseq"
and it works just like i wanted.
hey jerry, you know, you should really consider writing a book about
all this... ;-)
paul
=---------------------
paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (arlington, ma, where it's 27.7 degrees)
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
