1 Return-Path: <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>
\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 05ABB431FBC
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:23:18 -0800 (PST)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
\r
13 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled
\r
14 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
15 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
16 with ESMTP id c-Dlm+tbsLyf for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
17 Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:23:17 -0800 (PST)
\r
18 Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6])
\r
19 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
\r
20 (No client certificate requested)
\r
21 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43EC3431FAE
\r
22 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:23:17 -0800 (PST)
\r
23 Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40])
\r
24 by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
\r
25 (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)
\r
26 id 1S6KOG-0002J3-Tv; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:23:13 +0000
\r
27 Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223]
\r
29 by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69)
\r
30 (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)
\r
31 id 1S6KOG-0006xi-LA; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:23:12 +0000
\r
32 From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>
\r
33 To: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
34 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] argument parsing additions
\r
35 In-Reply-To: <cover.1331329406.git.jani@nikula.org>
\r
36 References: <87399iicit.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> <cover.1331329406.git.jani@nikula.org>
\r
37 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+309~g045f9e7 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
\r
38 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
\r
39 Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:23:15 +0000
\r
40 Message-ID: <87vcmchf8c.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
42 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
\r
43 X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223
\r
44 X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :)
\r
45 X-QM-Body-MD5: 8ed9cd8bbdeab3c8e90a62b9e2a4962b (of first 20000 bytes)
\r
46 X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.8
\r
47 X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: -
\r
48 X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to
\r
50 spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam.
\r
51 This message scored -1.8 points.
\r
52 Summary of the scoring:
\r
53 * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
\r
55 * [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org]
\r
56 * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
\r
57 provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)
\r
58 * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
\r
60 * 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
\r
61 X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean
\r
62 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
63 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
65 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
66 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
67 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
68 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
69 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
70 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
71 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
72 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
73 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
74 X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:23:18 -0000
\r
76 On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 00:33:27 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
\r
79 > I'm not sure which is worse, criticizing or rewriting other people's
\r
80 > patches. I already did the former, and now I'm doing the
\r
81 > latter. Apologies for both. I didn't really mean to write these patches,
\r
82 > but it turned out to be more fun writing a proper reply in C than in
\r
85 > Patch 1 adds --arg=true and --arg=false support for booleans. It's not
\r
86 > strictly required for the --entire-thread support in patch 3, which uses
\r
87 > the extension of keyword arguments from patch 2, but it's for
\r
88 > consistency across boolean arguments.
\r
92 I like patch 1: I have an almost identical to my version (in the series
\r
93 I just sent to the list
\r
94 id:"1331377533-30262-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com>
\r
95 X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.9.1").
\r
97 I am not sure about patch 2 and patch 3. Do you have a use case for
\r
98 --option except when option is a boolean? Otherwise I think I prefer either my
\r
99 approach (abusing a notmuch_bool_t) or just adding an option
\r
100 NOTMUCH_OPT_BOOLEAN_AS_INT which does boolean parsing but returns an
\r
101 int. I guess I am saying that I think allowing boolean options which can
\r
102 sometimes default to true and sometimes to false is more useful than
\r
103 allowing --option for arbitrary keywords (*).
\r
105 What do you think?
\r
111 (*) Indeed, I was thinking of the former as a possibility for the
\r
112 exclude code, but I am erring towards just using keywords so I can allow
\r
113 more options as you suggested.
\r
117 > Please let me know what you think.
\r
124 > command-line-arguments: allow true and false keywords for booleans
\r
125 > command-line-arguments: support keyword arguments with default value
\r
126 > cli: allow switching off entire thread mode in notmuch show json
\r
129 > command-line-arguments.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
\r
130 > command-line-arguments.h | 1 +
\r
131 > notmuch-show.c | 12 ++++++++++--
\r
132 > 3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
\r