Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE42431FAF for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:43:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.485 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DATE_IN_PAST_24_48=0.485] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NJSvXod0gAbc for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:43:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tesseract.cs.unb.ca (tesseract.cs.unb.ca [131.202.240.238]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06A1A431FAE for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:43:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tesseract.cs.unb.ca ([131.202.240.238] helo=rocinante.cs.unb.ca) by tesseract.cs.unb.ca with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SCEtE-0008R8-8o; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:43:37 -0300 Received: from bremner by rocinante.cs.unb.ca with local (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SBWAl-00058I-Hu; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:58:43 -0400 From: David Bremner To: Jani Nikula , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cli: refactor "notmuch tag" data structures for tagging operations In-Reply-To: <992ada5cb2fa5f89d4f38b10d62f1c178b3174e2.1332604895.git.jani@nikula.org> References: <992ada5cb2fa5f89d4f38b10d62f1c178b3174e2.1332604895.git.jani@nikula.org> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+166~gd2ef4ed (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:58:43 -0400 Message-ID: <87pqc1ygf0.fsf@rocinante.cs.unb.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam_bar: / X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 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: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:43:39 -0000 On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 18:14:35 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > + if (argv[i][0] == '+' || argv[i][0] == '-') { > + tag_ops[tag_ops_count++] = (tag_operation_t) { > + .tag = argv[i] + 1, > + .remove = argv[i][0] == '-', > + }; I'm not sure if this is a worthwhile use of a C99. Wouldn't it be simpler to just use two assignments? and maybe increment the index after? Still 3 lines of code. Other than that, this patch looked ok to me. I think it probably deserves a NEWS patch that the ordering behaviour changed. I do think the new order is more sensible, and the old one was never documented. d