jerrad wrote: > >digit message numbers. believe me, "p last_4" is much less error > >prone than "p 365530". > Sorry, I wasn't clear. The error-proneness wasn't due to typing, > but in gauging which line of the displayed sequence was the message > you cared about. Although I suppose those who love this mode of > specifying messages might develop a scan format file that includes > sequence indices in the output...
oh, i see. yes -- i only find myself wishing for it for very small values of 'n'. ---------------------- paul fox, [email protected] (arlington, ma, where it's 40.6 degrees) _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
