bill wrote:
n...@dad.org writes:
Ken Hornstein k...@pobox.com writes:
Hm. I'm torn. So, it looks like it's okay in terms of syntax; _ is
not a valid character in a sequence. But what are the semantics if
'name' refers to more than one message?
Then name+n is the nth
$ scan unseen
...notice that third-from-end message is spam...
$ refile unseen_3 +spam
Seems delightfully error-prone and inefficient.
Scan includes message numbers, rmm the specific
message and there's no need to count lines of output.
vpick might also be useful here?
jerrad wrote:
$ scan unseen
...notice that third-from-end message is spam...
$ refile unseen_3 +spam
Seems delightfully error-prone and inefficient.
Scan includes message numbers, rmm the specific
message and there's no need to count lines of output.
even after over 30
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
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
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:27:14 -0400, Paul Fox said:
oh, i see. yes -- i only find myself wishing for it for very small
values of 'n'.
Amen, brother...
% folder +linux-kernel
linux-kernel+ has 237249 messages (5-284323); cur=279067.
pgps_Ifw6HWk7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
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...
On 2013-04-03, at 5:25 AM, Paul Fox wrote:
$ scan unseen
...notice that third-from-end message is spam...
$ refile unseen_3 +spam
I don't think '_' is a very good choice. It's too commonly used as a word
separator in text strings. Why not use the Git convention: unseen~3 ?
lyndon wrote:
On 2013-04-03, at 5:25 AM, Paul Fox wrote:
$ scan unseen
...notice that third-from-end message is spam...
$ refile unseen_3 +spam
I don't think '_' is a very good choice. It's too commonly used as a word
separator in text strings. Why not use the
