Message-ID: <4DC8926E.9070209@fifthhorseman.net>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 21:18:38 -0400
From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110402 Icedove/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] python/thread: always return a string
	in	get_subject/authors
References: <1304924794-20380-1-git-send-email-anton@khirnov.net>
	<87bozcvzdy.fsf@zancas.localnet>	<87zkmv5pz6.fsf@SSpaeth.de>
In-Reply-To: <87zkmv5pz6.fsf@SSpaeth.de>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="------------enig486932FB058B78023E8CC1D9"
Precedence: list
Reply-To: notmuch <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig486932FB058B78023E8CC1D9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 05/09/2011 09:00 PM, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> On Mon, 09 May 2011 09:20:41 -0300, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> w=
rote:
>> On Mon,  9 May 2011 09:06:34 +0200, Anton Khirnov <anton@khirnov.net> =
wrote:
>>> Now None is returned when those don't exist, which is inconvenient to=

>>> deal with.
>>
>> I'm not using the python bindings, but from a philosophical point of
>> view, this change makes me a bit uncomfortable since it apparently
>> merges two cases together, and makes an error (no Subject)
>> indistinguishable from an odd situation (Subject of empty string).
>> Or am I missing something here?
>=20
> This change makes me a bit uncomfortable too. 3 Reasons:
>=20
> - I believe users should be able to distinguish the case when someone
>   uses an empty subject, and when someone doesn't specify a subject at
>   all.

I'm going to "me too!" this sentiment as well.  Please do *not* conflate
no-subject with subject-is-empty-string.

If we leave them distinct, the caller is free to conflate them if they
want.  But if we conflate the two states first, there's no way for the
caller to differentiate between the two if they want to.

Thanks,

	--dkg


--------------enig486932FB058B78023E8CC1D9
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=KTDE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig486932FB058B78023E8CC1D9--