Re: Automatic Re-ing with numbers

I'm pretty sure it has been discussed, but I wasn't able to find the thread.

I don't like the idea for a few reasons. First, I'm perfectly happy with a growing list of "Re"s most of the time. I'm used to it from mailing lists and such. Second, people do it differently. Some change "Re: Re:" to "Re2" some change it to "Re^2"... And third, given vanity prefixes like "(Ovid)" or "•", it would be much harder to do correctly than your simple regular expression implies.

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

Comment on Re: Automatic Re-ing with numbers

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Automatic Re-ing with numbers by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Aug 11, 2003 at 04:45 UTC
I'm used to it from mailing lists and such. Hmm? Mails tend to have a single "Re:" with no indication of depth. All of the mailers I've ever used keep it that way, and therefor so do the mailing lists. I can hardly find any "Re: Re:" mails in my mboxes and none with "Re: Re: Re:" or more. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re: Re^2: Automatic Re-ing with numbers by sauoq (Abbot) on Aug 11, 2003 at 09:34 UTC
Mails tend to have a single "Re:" with no indication of depth. Of course you are right. I just seem to be living in the past. I did a little zgrep'ing on my archives and found many more occurences of multiple "re"s from 1996 then in more recent years. And, it was worse; there were all sorts of ugly combos of "Re" and "RE" and even a couple with "re". shrug So, those long strings of "Re"s look rather normal to me. What can I say? -sauoq "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";	[reply]


Think about Loose Coupling
	PerlMonks