From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>
To: Peter Wang <novalazy@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] man: clarify search --exclude documentation
In-Reply-To: <20120623120244.GB2330@hili.localdomain>
References: <1340198947-29370-1-git-send-email-novalazy@gmail.com>
	<1340198947-29370-5-git-send-email-novalazy@gmail.com>
	<87ehp93fx6.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
	<20120623120244.GB2330@hili.localdomain>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.13.2+63~g548a9bf (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1
	(i486-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 08:14:30 +0100
Message-ID: <87395mbiuh.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Precedence: list

Peter Wang <novalazy@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:08:05 +0100, Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I have reviewed all the new parts of this series (judged as being
>> patches 3-8) and the changes made to my two patches and they are all
>> fine (with one small comment below). Patch 1/8 does need a proper review
>> though as it ended up more intrusive than I would have liked.
>> 
>> > +Messages matching search.tag_exclude are called "excluded messages".
>> 
>> My one comment is that this is not quite true if the corresponding tag
>> is in the query. Since you are defining the term it would be nice to
>> mention that, but I can't see a clean wording.
>
> How about:
>
>     A message is called "excluded" if it matches at least one tag
>     in search.tag_exclude that does not appear explicitly in the search
>     terms.

I think this wording is excellent (and prefer it to the less dense wording).

Best wishes

Mark

> Or less densely:
>
>     Let "excluded tags" be the set of tags listed in search.tag_exclude,
>     minus any tags which appear explicitly in the search terms.
>     A message is an "excluded message" if it matches one or more
>     excluded tags.
>
> Peter