Return-Path: <tom.prince@ualberta.net>
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 DF067429E26
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu,  6 Oct 2011 18:43:43 -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 ZTUQCu1XVbTI for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
	Thu,  6 Oct 2011 18:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from socrates.hocat.ca (socrates.hocat.ca [76.10.188.53])
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29C90431FB6
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu,  6 Oct 2011 18:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.hocat.ca (hermes.hocat.ca [69.165.170.253])
	by socrates.hocat.ca (Postfix) with SMTP id C114D2485;
	Thu,  6 Oct 2011 19:43:39 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (nullmailer pid 8566 invoked by uid 1000);
	Fri, 07 Oct 2011 01:43:38 -0000
From: Tom Prince <tom.prince@ualberta.net>
To: David Bremner <bremner@unb.ca>,
	Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: output file argument to notmuch dump.
In-Reply-To: <87sjn539lm.fsf@zancas.localnet>
References: <8739f5tzxj.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87vcs1ljq3.fsf@gmail.com>
	<87sjn539lm.fsf@zancas.localnet>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.7 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.3
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:43:38 -0400
Message-ID: <871uup8tkl.fsf@hermes.hocat.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: notmuch <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."
	<notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 01:43:44 -0000

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:53:57 -0300, David Bremner <bremner@unb.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 04:37:56 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:20:40 -0300, David Bremner <bremner@unb.ca> wrote:
> 
> > IMHO 1[+2] is the way.  It breaks the dump command interface, but would
> > make it consistent with other commands.  Implementing the second option
> > (for all commands) is nice but independent and optional.  Also, perhaps
> > --output, --output-file or smth would a better name than --write.
> 
> I'm not fussy about the name, except that --output is taken, and I
> thought there might be some benefit of making options have unique
> prefixes.

Is -o/--output taken before the subcommand? i.e.
notmuch -o <dumpfile> dump <query> <terms>
Or would that be to confusing?

(-o is fairly standard for stdout redirection, so it would be nice to
use that for notmuch, as well.)

  Tom