Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DA5C6DE00CB for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 18:31:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.118 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.118 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.118] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RnBGhOQ5KsSE for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 18:31:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gitolite.debian.net (gitolite.debian.net [87.98.215.224]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 226F76DE005F for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 18:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by gitolite.debian.net with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ZVrRf-0005Rn-Hd; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 01:30:07 +0000 Received: (nullmailer pid 18833 invoked by uid 1000); Sun, 30 Aug 2015 01:29:46 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Jani Nikula , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] cli: add support for not deduplicating notmuch address results In-Reply-To: <5badd1d1d46690987558dd2283efdc69be4c8c99.1440859765.git.jani@nikula.org> References: <5badd1d1d46690987558dd2283efdc69be4c8c99.1440859765.git.jani@nikula.org> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.2+60~gcb08a2e (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 22:29:46 -0300 Message-ID: <87d1y5tvg5.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 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, 30 Aug 2015 01:31:58 -0000 Jani Nikula writes: > + { NOTMUCH_OPT_KEYWORD, &ctx->dupe, "deduplicate", 'x', probably you want 'D' or 'd' here. Not that it makes a practical difference at this point. > + (notmuch_keyword_t []){ { "yes", -1 }, I'm not very enthusiastic about reusing ctx->dupe for this. In particular the use of -1 for yes is off-putting It seems better to allocate another word of memory and use an enum, as elsewhere.