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 2E515431FAF for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 05:02:37 -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 KSNhzgDY5K5h for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 05:02:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tesseract.cs.unb.ca (tesseract.cs.unb.ca [131.202.240.238]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 672F1431FAE for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 05:02:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fctnnbsc30w-156034089108.dhcp-dynamic.fibreop.nb.bellaliant.net ([156.34.89.108] helo=zancas.localnet) by tesseract.cs.unb.ca with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SJO9v-0008QO-Gs; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 09:02:27 -0300 Received: from bremner by zancas.localnet with local (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SJO9q-0002sX-52; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 09:02:18 -0300 From: David Bremner To: Jani Nikula , Jameson Graef Rollins , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] batch tagging support: "notmuch tag --stdin" In-Reply-To: <87ty0mdnti.fsf@nikula.org> References: <87d37ays85.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> <87ty0mdnti.fsf@nikula.org> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.12+104~gf9ad237 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 09:02:18 -0300 Message-ID: <87mx6dtd85.fsf@zancas.localnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam_bar: - 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, 15 Apr 2012 12:02:37 -0000 Jani Nikula writes: > I'm totally fine with modifying the proposed format (e.g. change "T" to > "tag", make things compatible with a future general batch mode), but to > be absolutely clear: I will not implement a general batch command > mode. I was thinking about the best way of making the interface extensible, and it might be better have a kind of modal interface, where some well defined escape at the beginning of the line introduces a mode switch. This has two apparent advantages: it avoids duplication of redundant information at the beginning of each line, and for input to a subcommand it could be optional. something like * tag +foo +bar msg.id@blah +glub -glog other.msg.id@blog vs * restore foo bar msg.id@blah glub glog other.msg.id@blog where a hypothetical general batch interface could take those two files concatenated together, and the "*" lines would be optional feeding to tag and restore respectively. I guess the current proposal is to have the restore format and tag format a bit closer * restore +foo +bar msg.id@blah +glub +glog other.msg.id@blog This looks like it would be a 2% space increase for my tags. I guess I could live with that. Another option would be to have the '+' be optional for tag as well; I suppose then tags starting with + would be ambiguous, which is probably a bad idea. d