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, [email protected] (arlington, ma, where it's 67.5 degrees)
