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 CAB61431FBF for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:59:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none] 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 Hx9Zw5a4Anp4 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:59:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from socrates.hocat.ca (socrates.hocat.ca [76.10.188.53]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C9F5431FBD for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:59:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.hocat.ca (hermes.hocat.ca [69.165.170.253]) by socrates.hocat.ca (Postfix) with SMTP id 18E001AE3; Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:59:54 -0700 (MST) Received: (nullmailer pid 28333 invoked by uid 1000); Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:59:54 -0000 From: Tom Prince To: David Bremner , Notmuch Mail Subject: Re: Replacing my name/email with "me" (or similar) in author lists In-Reply-To: <87fwdxk062.fsf@zancas.localnet> References: <20120226112210.5422.8471@brick.lan> <87ehthfsyn.fsf@schoepe.localhost> <87fwdxk062.fsf@zancas.localnet> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+239~g4d2d96b (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.2 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:59:53 -0500 Message-ID: <87ehth8dd2.fsf@hermes.hocat.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:59:58 -0000 On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:51:49 -0400, David Bremner wrote: > I have sometimes wondered about having another library layer making some > of the current CLI functionality accessible to bindings. I'm not really > sure of the pro's and con's of such approach. It would certainly be > overkill for this one feature. It is probably overkill for any one feature, but it does seem like something useful to have. So maybe it would be worthwhile to create for this one feature, even it it is overkill. Tom