> Joel Reicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >If everyone's happy with "+" meaning the folder root and "@" meaning
> >the current folder and anything following being interpreted the same
> >as any pathspec would be then I'll clean up the code and try to get
> >around to making sure it's documented properly too.
>
> NO. I'm not quite happy with that, in that I would prefer
> that
>
> + foobar
>
> mean the same thing as +foobar. That way wild card expansion in shell scripts
> and file name completion in interactive shells would be much easier.
OK, that brings us back to the original discussion. :) Is "+" without
anything immediately following a folderspec in its own right? Norman
says no, and I think I agree with him, chiefly because the folder root
could still be referenced with "+." (once I fix the bugs).
Cheers,
- Joel
P.S. Norman, I replied to your two-month old message about using "file -i"
just recently, but your mailserver rejects any email coming from mine. If
this list doesn't send duplicates to you then you might not have seen my
reply at all.
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
