1 Return-Path: <jani@nikula.org>
\r
2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
\r
5 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A6F431FCF
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 10:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled
\r
13 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
14 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
15 with ESMTP id NZDZEZm7LkeW for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
16 Mon, 29 Sep 2014 10:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
\r
17 Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com (mail-wg0-f49.google.com
\r
18 [74.125.82.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client
\r
19 certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id
\r
20 89CD4431FD4 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 10:28:31 -0700
\r
22 Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id x12so895719wgg.20
\r
23 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 10:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
\r
24 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
\r
25 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
\r
26 h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references
\r
27 :user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type;
\r
28 bh=k5MpagCpAscibIZuRMzWeDcNsJGyBud/hvC1mND+TU8=;
\r
29 b=C9/3diJI/KdhPB3jd+2c69gw+jXad0G1Cv1aEK58TvECXgrMMmY+a3Jj30yr6qenr6
\r
30 vDnT+swHDdQZUUu8zShYXUrFr+iB4EfEZL94CexuPc4tkLqFL/tCzBP86H+KCREeUvaU
\r
31 3p29CBiXMIpo7VYUqdKTWBzJWmGGUKdSqfCWocT8AnXlLFlOdIiAvDvqfyxQQJl/D6lY
\r
32 aHz3HzGvLkLbUcLa05M5a5I8yRVxVB2n0CFGE2cvNQZySEsZUfjP4WTQm5lFIZyJx14w
\r
33 RsoKfa1x6ZrvRlbzAWJPao/Xm83e32vr+IGrJkX7KE9JPOhmKic6SYUFs6qfRRA4IzCU
\r
36 ALoCoQlLVNf+wlae3sdLxKeD1U9HCiIGnxvcaf2sYdwGB+PtxA3RnKpWd9m983iFIDesCKCU7lZk
\r
37 X-Received: by 10.180.81.195 with SMTP id c3mr38753895wiy.11.1412011709328;
\r
38 Mon, 29 Sep 2014 10:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
\r
39 Received: from localhost (dsl-hkibrasgw2-58c36c-245.dhcp.inet.fi.
\r
40 [88.195.108.245]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
\r
41 bt9sm16374207wjc.44.2014.09.29.10.28.28 for <multiple recipients>
\r
42 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
\r
43 Mon, 29 Sep 2014 10:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
\r
44 From: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>
\r
45 To: Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>, Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>,
\r
46 notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
47 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] cli: Refactor option passing in the search command
\r
48 In-Reply-To: <87k34rtoi2.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz>
\r
49 References: <1411378679-7307-1-git-send-email-sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>
\r
50 <1411378679-7307-2-git-send-email-sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>
\r
51 <m27g0rpl6x.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
\r
52 <87k34rtoi2.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz>
\r
53 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18.1+65~g9f0f30f (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1
\r
54 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
\r
55 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:28:26 +0300
\r
56 Message-ID: <874mvqxrnp.fsf@nikula.org>
\r
58 Content-Type: text/plain
\r
59 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
60 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
62 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
63 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
64 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
65 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
66 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
67 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
68 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
69 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
70 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
71 X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 17:28:44 -0000
\r
73 On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
\r
74 > On Thu, Sep 25 2014, Tomi Ollila wrote:
\r
75 >> Although the test and the implementation in the next patches look OK, I'd
\r
76 >> prefer the FLAG implementation Jani suggested earlier. IMO now that I
\r
77 >> compare these two it looks cleaner and simpler...
\r
79 > The question is which kind of simplicity you have in mind. I think that
\r
80 > my version is simpler to type (less keystrokes). But if others have
\r
81 > different opinion, I don't mind.
\r
83 I'm biased, but I do like the implementation simplicity of my
\r
84 approach. Adding the bash completion support is also trivial.
\r