Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11884429E3E for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 19:45:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kMKeq3OeIXZH for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 19:45:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-6.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-6.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.35]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C30429E3D for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 19:45:35 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 12074423-b7f9c6d0000008c3-af-4ef54adee8c5 Received: from mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.35]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-6.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 6C.2C.02243.EDA45FE4; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:45:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id pBO3jXiG003716; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:45:34 -0500 Received: from awakening.csail.mit.edu (awakening.csail.mit.edu [18.26.4.91]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as amdragon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id pBO3jWes017779 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:45:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from amthrax by awakening.csail.mit.edu with local (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ReIZ7-0002Fm-Fu; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:46:33 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:46:33 -0500 From: Austin Clements To: Dmitry Kurochkin Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] show: Rewrite show_message_body to use the MIME tree interface. Message-ID: <20111224034633.GD1927@mit.edu> References: <1323027100-10307-1-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu> <1323460468-4030-1-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu> <1323460468-4030-5-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu> <87ehwb75xx.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ehwb75xx.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpmleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42IR4hRV1r3n9dXPYPVSIYurW/vZLa7fnMns wOSxc9Zddo9nq24xBzBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGVsPr6fpWAyW8X95Q8ZGxhvsXQxcnJICJhI rN20jwnCFpO4cG89G4gtJLCPUaK91bqLkQvI3sAocWnrI1aIxEkmiQ2nYiESSxgltn3fxgiS YBFQleideJIdxGYT0JDYtn85WFxEwFDi1sVXzCA2s4C0xLffzWDbhAWiJCYdXAd2Ba+AtsTZ xslMEENPMkrsOb2JFSIhKHFy5hMWiGYtiRv/XgIVcYANWv6PAyTMKaAu0X6hC2yXqICKxJST 29gmMArNQtI9C0n3LITuBYzMqxhlU3KrdHMTM3OKU5N1i5MT8/JSi3TN9HIzS/RSU0o3MYLC mt1FeQfjn4NKhxgFOBiVeHibl37xE2JNLCuuzD3EKMnBpCTKe9Xtq58QX1J+SmVGYnFGfFFp TmrxIUYJDmYlEV7NJKBy3pTEyqrUonyYlDQHi5I4r4bWOz8hgfTEktTs1NSC1CKYrAwHh5IE rwIwfoUEi1LTUyvSMnNKENJMHJwgw3mAhruB1PAWFyTmFmemQ+RPMSpKifNqgyQEQBIZpXlw vbC084pRHOgVYV4pkCoeYMqC634FNJgJaHCMEcjVxSWJCCmpBkaunPKpHmxnr5ozdPRvyZm1 yPz4Vmml07zvdma0HNT5o3TMyd4ow+Wsk6p23PboasGJBzXLwgpP3Cs6LLJlfeX2V0Ym8qty k6bwr7bdlXX+vprhnG2fL71w2M3PIdIWH6DW/CCn6srNOz6SkZOYcvdsP7jWSqxI++XuTanq k7w/OZ1UV78bXqbEUpyRaKjFXFScCACh8q65FgMAAA== Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 03:45:36 -0000 Quoth Dmitry Kurochkin on Dec 11 at 2:34 pm: > Hi Austin. > > I enjoyed reviewing this patch. It is a pleasure to see how complex and > confusing code becomes much smaller and cleaner. > > I still have some questions with the new code. It seems confusing to me > that part_content is called first and then go envelope headers. But I > this is just the first step of the rewrite, right? :) Yeah, this is weird, but I'm just being compatible with the existing code at this point. This code is about to go away. > The only comment I have: > > + format->part_content (part); > > For all other format members that are function pointers, we have a check > for NULL. Perhaps we should add it here as well? I would if I weren't about to delete this. ]:--8)