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 34FC46DE0243 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 16:34:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.02 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.009, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 aAbfycJJAmQu for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 16:34:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD0FC6DE01F7 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 16:34:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1anaUR-0003pI-4J; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 19:34:31 -0400 Received: (nullmailer pid 9428 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 05 Apr 2016 23:33:55 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , Tomi Ollila , Notmuch Mail Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] fix thread breakage via ghost-on-removal In-Reply-To: <874mbfvn2l.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> References: <1459445693-3900-1-git-send-email-dkg@fifthhorseman.net> <1459606541-23889-1-git-send-email-dkg@fifthhorseman.net> <1459606541-23889-3-git-send-email-dkg@fifthhorseman.net> <874mbfvn2l.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+74~g6c60fb1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 20:33:55 -0300 Message-ID: <8760vvhbq4.fsf@zancas.localnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 23:34:10 -0000 Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: >> >> Outside of this patch, but in some of the next messages, adds functions >> _notmuch_message_has_term() and _notmuch_message_has_term_st(). Perhaps >> the _notmuch_message_has_term() could be left unimplemented? > > yeah, i can do that, though i have to say it's programmatically > convenient to have a simple boolean test that defaults to some value if > there was an error. Maybe this is obvious, but we rely heavily in the notmuch code base on NOTMUCH_STATUS_SUCCESS==0, so the following idiom is pretty common, status = notmuch_status_returning_thing (... &out); if (status) { /* error path */ } /* otherwise, deal with out */