From: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>
To: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] cli: add support for batch tagging operations to
	"notmuch tag"
In-Reply-To: <87pqbpxm2c.fsf@nikula.org>
References: <cover.1333231401.git.jani@nikula.org>
	<f360a40bed50208d146aee8b06946b1b8315e818.1333231401.git.jani@nikula.org>
	<87ty123tpc.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
	<87aa2tc22z.fsf@zancas.localnet>
	<87iphh50hz.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
	<CAB+hUn_J9oOmbWaQ+_2yGG6i6ecDXbfJWYbpaYx_kbSnAH+EcA@mail.gmail.com>
	<87fwcl4yr8.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
	<CAB+hUn-5yB15na2kFMZOjOEujKQTWHiefvgQYsT4Zi3UOzKwQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<87d37p4xor.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
	<87pqbpxm2c.fsf@nikula.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.12+87~g3c4c85f (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 15:51:26 -0700
Message-ID: <87wr5w2zv5.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Cc: Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Precedence: list

--=-=-=

On Tue, Apr 03 2012, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
> Yes, it's more flexible, but what are the real benefits of such
> flexibility? What other commands than tag/restore would truly benefit
> from this? I might add that nobody has asked for such flexibility.

But I do believe it was your patch that introduced the idea of batch
processing of other commands to begin with.  I think you're just turning
my original question to you back on me.  There's no point in adding and
initial flag to the beginning of the line to specify the command to
execute if you have no intention of ever supporting other commands.  Or
vice versa, if you ultimately want to support multiple commands then the
place to do it is in the top level interface, and not in one of the
subcommands.

Ultimately, I think this patch series suffers from being simultaneously
too close to existing functionality (restore), yet tantalizingly close
to a much more generally useful concept of batch command processing.  I
would rather see it go one way or the other rather than add something
fairly redundant in the middle.

jamie.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=EbJM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--