1 Return-Path: <polatel@gmail.com>
\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 BA800431FD0
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 00:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
\r
13 FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01]
\r
15 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
16 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
17 with ESMTP id 1mGdJybCuofH for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
18 Wed, 28 Sep 2011 00:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
\r
19 Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com
\r
20 [209.85.214.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
\r
21 (No client certificate requested)
\r
22 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 233C3431FB6
\r
23 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 00:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
\r
24 Received: by bkbzt12 with SMTP id zt12so9148977bkb.26
\r
25 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 00:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
\r
26 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
\r
27 h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date
\r
28 :message-id:mime-version:content-type;
\r
29 bh=pTGlSshghy7gaF127lt1GTcHej3KMJ9sz86TrBMm600=;
\r
30 b=oBEN65WOoczRxQM1+oxKZg335fnADzgM2IITj6ap2eMoMEi7fAkC7dJ5e+yPhe1Nas
\r
31 xCkDLTXBzABlgT/+yEUjPMno673KOBmyFxxADIutHiv/3MmKzzY0MEVRya68oz8zrWf2
\r
32 Yv1ABe/k9TuQBr6+848UfbPglMQ/6Ymv7WsUQ=
\r
33 Received: by 10.204.154.194 with SMTP id p2mr5802996bkw.56.1317196391424;
\r
34 Wed, 28 Sep 2011 00:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
\r
35 Received: from localhost ([88.251.189.177])
\r
36 by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j16sm21766924bks.3.2011.09.28.00.53.09
\r
37 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
\r
38 Wed, 28 Sep 2011 00:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
\r
39 From: Ali Polatel <polatel@gmail.com>
\r
40 To: Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>, David Bremner <david@tethera.net>
\r
41 Subject: Re: Concerns regarding some library functions
\r
42 In-Reply-To: <20110927224622.GR17905@mit.edu>
\r
43 References: <871uv2unfd.fsf@gmail.com> <87fwjhx6p5.fsf@convex-new.cs.unb.ca>
\r
44 <20110927224622.GR17905@mit.edu>
\r
45 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.8-39-gdd7cb35 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
\r
46 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
\r
47 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:53:02 +0300
\r
48 Message-ID: <877h4tyug1.fsf@gmail.com>
\r
50 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
\r
51 micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
\r
52 Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
53 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
54 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
56 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
57 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
58 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
59 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
60 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
61 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
62 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
63 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
64 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
65 X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 07:53:14 -0000
\r
68 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
\r
70 On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:46:22 -0400, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrot=
\r
72 > Quoth David Bremner on Sep 27 at 1:59 pm:
\r
73 > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:25:58 +0300, Ali Polatel <polatel@gmail.com> wro=
\r
76 > > > The problem with their design is NULL return may both mean an error
\r
77 > > > condition and "message not found". However, we already have a similar
\r
78 > > > function which does not have such a flaw, namely notmuch_database_add=
\r
81 > > So, I take there is no way to distinguish those two outcomes? That does
\r
82 > > sound bad. Looking at the code for notmuch-new, it looks like the return
\r
83 > > value of notmuch_database_find_message_by_filename is used without
\r
84 > > checking it for NULL. Austin, can you comment on that at all?
\r
86 > I'd be happy to distinguish these outcomes. I did
\r
87 > notmuch_database_find_message_by_filename the way I did only to be
\r
88 > consistent with notmuch_database_find_message. Since ndfmbf isn't
\r
89 > entrenched yet, now is a good time to change it.
\r
91 What about notmuch_database_find_message()? If we leave it as it is,
\r
92 this will lead to inconsistency and if we change it, we need to think
\r
93 about API breakage issues.
\r
95 > The call in notmuch-new should check the return, though if it can't
\r
96 > find the message at that point, something has gone terribly wrong.
\r
97 > Segfaulting is never the answer, though.
\r
99 Indeed, just not to step on each other's feet, are you going to write a
\r
100 patch or shall I start writing one?
\r
105 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
\r
107 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
\r
108 Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
\r
110 iEYEARECAAYFAk6C0mAACgkQQU4yORhF8iD/IQCgl4jc5BGVFauAIvnSuhV+4DIX
\r
111 cWMAoMsEkiq4IPfEpuKEyIFj7oNOLWGo
\r
113 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
\r