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 CBD616DE13ED for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 21:22:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.874 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.874 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AM.WBL=-8, ALL_TRUSTED=-1, AWL=0.126] 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 9oSbWRRK_wWH; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 21:22:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from wondoo.home.cworth.org (unknown [10.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: cworth) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2BB066DE1378; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 21:22:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from wondoo.home.cworth.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by wondoo.home.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12DF214C4076; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 21:22:13 -0800 (PST) To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , notmuch mailing list Subject: Re: NOTMUCH_STATUS_LAST_STATUS problematic across additive library upgrades In-Reply-To: <87poyhpzbb.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> References: <87y4d5q38i.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <87vb89n83m.fsf@wondoo.home.cworth.org> <87poyhpzbb.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Sender: cworth@cworth.org From: Carl Worth Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 21:22:11 -0800 Message-ID: <87bna1ms58.fsf@wondoo.home.cworth.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" 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, 08 Dec 2015 05:22:14 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain On Mon, Dec 07 2015, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > I note that it's exposed in the go bindings -- maybe it shouldn't be > exposed in any of the bindings that can avoid exposing it? Quite likely. It's only there in C because there's no other way to know the bounds for iterating over all possible values for a particular enum. If other languages don't have this deficiency, then they shouldn't need this silly thing. -Carl --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWZmkEAAoJEGACM7qeVNxhhRkP/0abt+uABJMB4cwuE++fbZgv VqXkzjBkDxxCimoypc3rrd7KiNbOoep5D1DRBm0IdT/edYDOnHtL+buq18CPN8WD aH0AnggP5pTHoNSW9J0K3UAzqCN7lfCzrpYgx159/a8RCcuN9O+DBevNOeK5vMnd cl9KvgsRjIGBKUJtFiWk2z60A4dubPzUjbzA9M2uPMAhgwjJo9kG7+7VNwrDFkkh S38W3d8biRs9wP22nyzjEXIrLqinKyScVa4kK6ZeL/EW5V8EPSRZABfanwtDhUdG VqXGVn8YLpnuBl6vUVwUX2ReAcQzMDfCSamfZtvtGK00coIjmdQsTLkOmMG5gcuP 3Kl4rfsG6PjwzncBMBwwv0DFXkssFU73LtENYVzS2x2KBpGvmb92EroxWjHUEFZm GvSRRMd6nfpyctmhUkUEankPJDES3cWCA8y64WBRuNo3W6RRrvW4u6T9C/WSHd9x x1JBMN2bCnodtH623bbSD/gP0mbiRPo7y2v5Bh3xyd5+3O2GH2UCBoKa2ayO7OQd WyD1UaHg4Ti4keIpZ7K1QLuRD2eybmlxIMXcn2/F9cV8qHRape5FSSTjJb9QjPJu 4vSfKJSY2y503GW7nwnTDbQCGtPesMUTSfEz+6nKzUBOVafNsdugEh2wrfpHywUO arsxZ0q9MuEeCgkqZB8B =Gmt4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--