18/d937deff12e671bbdd95a1c038eb95821e419f

   1 Return-Path: <jrollins@finestructure.net>\r
   2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
   3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
   4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
   5         by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E63E5431FBC\r
   6         for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon,  8 Feb 2010 09:37:59 -0800 (PST)\r
   7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
   8 X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
   9 X-Spam-Score: -4.357\r
  10 X-Spam-Level: \r
  11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.383,\r
  12         BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] autolearn=ham\r
  13 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
  14         by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
  15         with ESMTP id T8AMLQv2mWbN for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
  16         Mon,  8 Feb 2010 09:37:59 -0800 (PST)\r
  17 Received: from brinza.cc.columbia.edu (brinza.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.8])\r
  18         by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D44431FBD\r
  19         for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon,  8 Feb 2010 09:37:58 -0800 (PST)\r
  20 Received: from servo.finestructure.net (geco.phys.columbia.edu\r
  21         [128.59.170.159])\r
  22         (user=jgr2110 author=jrollins@finestructure.net mech=PLAIN bits=0)\r
  23         by brinza.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o18HbkYR010689\r
  24         (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);\r
  25         Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:37:56 -0500 (EST)\r
  26 Received: from jrollins by servo.finestructure.net with local (Exim 4.71)\r
  27         (envelope-from <jrollins@finestructure.net>)\r
  28         id 1NeXY2-00075I-PY; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:37:22 -0500\r
  29 From: Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>\r
  30 To: Jed Brown <jed@59A2.org>, Olly Betts <olly@survex.com>,\r
  31         notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
  32 In-Reply-To: <87sk9btytr.fsf@59A2.org>\r
  33 References: <87636bws2o.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
  34         <slrnhmpbhk.4kj.olly@msgid.survex.com>\r
  35         <87hbpr8wuh.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> <87sk9btytr.fsf@59A2.org>\r
  36 Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:37:19 -0500\r
  37 Message-ID: <87eikv8w8g.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
  38 MIME-Version: 1.0\r
  39 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";\r
  40         micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"\r
  41 X-No-Spam-Score: Local\r
  42 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 128.59.29.8\r
  43 Subject: Re: [notmuch] strange behavior of indexing of and searching for\r
  44  strings containing '[]'\r
  45 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
  46 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
  47 Precedence: list\r
  48 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
  49         <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
  50 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
  51         <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
  52 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
  53 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
  54 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
  55 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
  56         <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
  57 X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:38:00 -0000\r
  58 \r
  59 --=-=-=\r
  60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable\r
  61 \r
  62 On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:35:44 +0100, Jed Brown <jed@59A2.org> wrote:\r
  63 > On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:24:06 -0500, Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestructu=\r
  64 re.net> wrote:\r
  65 > > I don't think that this is exactly correct.  The quoting is interpreted\r
  66 > > by the shell in order to construct a single string that is then passed\r
  67 > > as an argument to the program.\r
  68 >=20\r
  69 > The command line distinguishes, but the constructed query does not.\r
  70 > Look at query-string.c, the arguments are just concatenated.\r
  71 \r
  72 Hi, Jed.  Yes, this is clear from the behavior, but I'm claiming it's a\r
  73 bug that should be fixed.  It produces unexpected behavior with\r
  74 confusing results.\r
  75 \r
  76 jamie.\r
  77 \r
  78 --=-=-=\r
  79 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature\r
  80 \r
  81 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
  82 Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)\r
  83 \r
  84 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJLcEvQAAoJEO00zqvie6q8G8MP/2deaFIuztcujItvofDt5Dat\r
  85 REgpg2uwdiJE0qCgcncWDOSf3h7qQg1oeeYK7lecLVILbIx3aONq/EHOwXUiCzfa\r
  86 VsXKOy8jur8pbWRcuZWbU+RxcgNccbvoxPFnzp6kibIxw510z9S0Vd6DpUJdS43/\r
  87 0rk/cCBDHVZ8FTMguF6nPohdBW2L9pAuJ8nREIkjIla+AotoElN4t8YFduu4KilB\r
  88 1jA6jGtwLvzThiMNGa7fqNc6ARp78HNYJnvvxNbyk9aTBiCSfunCpP+F0d9fDvIx\r
  89 zsm72KRwV2HWnhCSdKk1A0ZWoHXPF7XG5WBxmbN4mju5xWyCUBmwwvl08S33Y6/r\r
  90 B6f8JdHB3Cr2nYRllHekjN5sJD/icTpaxtER/lLZZIT966Vmzy0DhRklYguBxR5k\r
  91 xbSXP9H5xbA0r7+dHNFO/OHo/KUloEkti6PeMKsjyyPjtnVpCp2LhiUwUDAf1zkX\r
  92 MrmT01dgTXEZ85eTm5hEnYlIdDVjnufp//de3VRSiQqLwn6VrKpeg14bJJpVJ+OC\r
  93 cQthFlV0Xbqc3sl9ffipZgvg6oaVcwzmo0PgJBVU/krSDJDhklsoVm3wv14ma8qf\r
  94 5CYoKZ01RGjiSFzJ/AYdgFanZlfu6aCBHRZ406CCL7bHIUqAkLqRZB29E44Aj/34\r
  95 Yq8WM2hZ4APa0n0FCHLJ\r
  96 =JlT0\r
  97 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
  98 --=-=-=--\r