From: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>
To: Jesse Rosenthal <jrosenthal@jhu.edu>
Subject: Re: output file argument to notmuch dump.
References: <8739f5tzxj.fsf@zancas.localnet> <m1wrcht801.fsf@jhu.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:15:39 +0300
In-Reply-To: <m1wrcht801.fsf@jhu.edu> (Jesse Rosenthal's message of "Fri, 07
	Oct 2011 06:23:58 -0400")
Message-ID: <yf6r52pxdb8.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110014 (No Gnus v0.14) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: David Bremner <bremner@unb.ca>, notmuch <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Precedence: list

On Fri 07 Oct 2011 13:23, Jesse Rosenthal <jrosenthal@jhu.edu> writes:

> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:20:40 -0300, David Bremner <bremner@unb.ca> wrote:
>> 1) just delete the output file option from notmuch-dump, and use shell
>>    redirection. So far I don't see a non-contrived example when writing
>>    an output file directly is useful, but maybe that is just a failure
>>    of imagination.
>> 
>> 2) delete the output file option and a global "--write" option that 
>>    calls freopen(... stdout). As a bonus(?) this would work for any 
>>    notmuch command.
>
> Either of these seem like the right approach to me. I might favor (1)
> just a bit so I don't have to choose between different ways of doing the
> same thing, but that's a small point. As Jamie said, they're pretty
> much the same.

The option 2, i.e. optional --write (or -o|--output) should be available;
someone may run notmuch without using environment that provides
redirections (or it is just plain simpler to give the command line option
instead of doing redirections).

> --Jesse

Tomi