From: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>
To: Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>, Aaron Ecay <aaronecay@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] emacs: new customization variable to exclude
	"deleted" messages from search
In-Reply-To: <20120109014938.GE20796@mit.edu>
References: <1325975294-646-1-git-send-email-jrollins@finestructure.net>
	<1325975294-646-2-git-send-email-jrollins@finestructure.net>
	<m2wr91ismu.fsf@gmail.com> <20120109014938.GE20796@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+168~g34b8bac (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 18:34:31 -0800
Message-ID: <87ehv9r4co.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Cc: Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 20:49:38 -0500, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> > > @@ -927,6 +932,9 @@ The optional parameters are used as follows:
> > >      (set 'notmuch-search-target-thread target-thread)
> > >      (set 'notmuch-search-target-line target-line)
> > >      (set 'notmuch-search-continuation continuation)
> > > +    (when (and notmuch-search-exclude-deleted
> > > +	       (not (string-match "tag:deleted[ )]*" query)))
> >=20
> > =E2=80=9Cis:=E2=80=9D is a synonym for =E2=80=9Ctag:=E2=80=9D in search=
es =E2=80=93 so this section of the code
> > should look for it too.
>=20
> There are several other things that could also trip up this regexp.
> xtag:deletedx would be falsely matched, as would a quoted phrase
> containing "tag:deleted", while tag:"deleted" and tag:(deleted) would
> incorrectly not be matched.

Thanks so much for the review, guys.  I should have mentioned in this
patch that the my regex skills are very weak, and that it was surely
incomplete.  I always forget about the is: prefix as well.

> Getting this right is hard, though I'd be happy with
>=20
>   "\\<\\(tag\\|is\\):deleted\\>"

Every time I think I start to understand regex I am reminded that it's
black magic and I really know nothing.  For instance, I am not familiar
with "<" or ">", although they appear to be a "word" boundaries
(although I'm not sure how "word" is defined).  Also, why is all the \\
(double?)  escaping needed?  I'll certainly take your word for it,
though.

> or maybe
>=20
>   "\\<\\(tag\\|is\\):\\(\"?\\)deleted\\>\\2"

After staring at this for 10 minutes I think I'm getting the extra bits
here.  It matches an initial \", and then a second at the end if the
first matched.  That's clever.  Why=20

  \\>\\2

instead of

 \\2\\>

?

I'm definitely confused by why so much apparent escaping is needed,
though.

> Implicit exclusions like this were actually one of my target features
> for the custom query parser, but I think hacking around that by
> inspecting the query string is a fine interim solution.  (One of these
> months I'll dust off the query parser, really!)

Very much looking forward to it!

jamie.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=6igb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--