From: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>
To: Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>,
	Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] emacs: support "notmuch new" as a notmuch-poll-script
In-Reply-To: <87wra2ay4e.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <1323640100-18326-1-git-send-email-jani@nikula.org>
	<87wra26a5u.fsf@gmail.com> <20111211225822.GH2760@mit.edu>
	<CAB+hUn-ADRtZRCq5Ad6H6R2L246EBR8hOSsk4B2yeRsH4kN16w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111212003103.GI2760@mit.edu> <yf6wra2m6y7.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi>
	<87wra2ay4e.fsf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+93~g631d290 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:38:21 +0200
Message-ID: <yf6r50am34i.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Precedence: list

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:21:53 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:15:44 +0200, Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 19:31:03 -0500, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> > > 
> > > So here's another idea, prefaced with a rant.
> > > 
> > > It's bothered me for a long time that notmuch-emacs didn't just know
> > > by default how to check for new mail.  What MUA doesn't know how to
> > > check for new mail?  Why does a new user of notmuch have to tell it
> > > how to check for new mail?  Of course, this *had* to be configured
> > > before because everyone had their own way of checking for new mail.
> > > Hooks eliminate this unnecessary flexibility and make "notmuch new"
> > > the one true way to check for new mail---as it ought to be---and in
> > > turn make the notmuch-poll-script variable obsolete.
> > > 
> > > So, what about changing the default "" setting of notmuch-poll-script
> > > from meaning "do nothing and be useless" to meaning "run notmuch new
> > > (using notmuch-command)"?  It will then automatically do the right
> > > thing for new users, while still being backward-compatible and
> > > allowing an escape hatch for bizarre situations.
> > 
> > +1
> > 
> > So, it could work like this:
> > 
> > (defun notmuch-poll ()
> >   "FIX DOCSTRING"
> >   (interactive)
> >   (if (stringp notmuch notmuch-poll-script)
> >       (if (string= notmuch-poll-script "")
> >         (call-process notmuch-command nil nil nil "new")
> >         (call-process notmuch-poll-script))))
> > 
> > I.e. in case notmuch-poll-script == nil, (or not string)
> > do nothing. In case notmuch-poll-script == "" execute notmuch new
> > and if notmuch-poll-script is string with content execute that.
> > 
> 
> I think the following scheme would be slightly better and more
> consistent:
> 
> * nil - run "notmuch new", the new default
> * "" - do nothing
> * "script" - run script

You're right. This us MUCH better (something irked me when writing
my suggestion but that was for ultimate backward compability); The
default value for notmuch-poll-script could be changed to nil.

> 
> Regards,
>   Dmitry
> 
> > users who want other functionality can reimplement notmuch-poll function
> > after notmuch has been loaded (and manage things themselves when internal
> > implementation changes ;().
> > 
> > 
> > Tomi

Tomi