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 12E64431FB6 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 16:24:32 -0700 (PDT) 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 6eSQfleYeS4i for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 16:24:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yantan.tethera.net (yantan.tethera.net [199.188.72.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73365431FAF for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 16:24:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by yantan.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X4ekK-0005UX-1Z; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:24:24 -0300 Received: (nullmailer pid 23713 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 08 Jul 2014 23:24:20 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Peter Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] cli: refactor insert In-Reply-To: <20140706135728.GE1142@hili.localdomain> References: <1397653165-15620-1-git-send-email-novalazy@gmail.com> <1397653165-15620-7-git-send-email-novalazy@gmail.com> <87simgq702.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> <20140706135728.GE1142@hili.localdomain> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18.1+22~gbf82697 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:24:20 -0300 Message-ID: <87a98jwi1n.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 23:24:32 -0000 Peter Wang writes: >> Is there a good reason to use TRUE and FALSE for return values rather >> than EXIT_SUCCESS and EXIT_FAILURE? It seems like the latter would be >> overall slightly simpler in notmuch_insert_command. > > Not sure what you have in mind. I think CLI exit codes should be > confined to notmuch_insert_command. I guess I was thinking of the convention of using 0 for success; several of the internal functions in e.g. notmuch-new.c, notmuch-dump.c an d notmuch-restore.c and notmuch-tag.c (and of course the notmuch lib) follow this. d