--- /dev/null
+Return-Path: <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+ by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05ABB431FBC\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:23:18 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -1.098\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+ tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,\r
+ NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+ by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+ with ESMTP id c-Dlm+tbsLyf for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:23:17 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6])\r
+ (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))\r
+ (No client certificate requested)\r
+ by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43EC3431FAE\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:23:17 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40])\r
+ by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71)\r
+ (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+ id 1S6KOG-0002J3-Tv; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:23:13 +0000\r
+Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223]\r
+ helo=localhost)\r
+ by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69)\r
+ (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+ id 1S6KOG-0006xi-LA; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:23:12 +0000\r
+From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+To: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] argument parsing additions\r
+In-Reply-To: <cover.1331329406.git.jani@nikula.org>\r
+References: <87399iicit.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> <cover.1331329406.git.jani@nikula.org>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+309~g045f9e7 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1\r
+ (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:23:15 +0000\r
+Message-ID: <87vcmchf8c.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\r
+X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223\r
+X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :)\r
+X-QM-Body-MD5: 8ed9cd8bbdeab3c8e90a62b9e2a4962b (of first 20000 bytes)\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.8\r
+X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: -\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to\r
+ determine if it is\r
+ spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam.\r
+ This message scored -1.8 points.\r
+ Summary of the scoring: \r
+ * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,\r
+ * medium trust\r
+ * [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org]\r
+ * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail\r
+ provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)\r
+ * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay\r
+ * domain\r
+ * 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list\r
+X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+ <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:23:18 -0000\r
+\r
+On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 00:33:27 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:\r
+> Hi Mark -\r
+> \r
+> I'm not sure which is worse, criticizing or rewriting other people's\r
+> patches. I already did the former, and now I'm doing the\r
+> latter. Apologies for both. I didn't really mean to write these patches,\r
+> but it turned out to be more fun writing a proper reply in C than in\r
+> English.\r
+> \r
+> Patch 1 adds --arg=true and --arg=false support for booleans. It's not\r
+> strictly required for the --entire-thread support in patch 3, which uses\r
+> the extension of keyword arguments from patch 2, but it's for\r
+> consistency across boolean arguments.\r
+\r
+Hi \r
+\r
+I like patch 1: I have an almost identical to my version (in the series\r
+I just sent to the list\r
+id:"1331377533-30262-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.9.1"). \r
+\r
+I am not sure about patch 2 and patch 3. Do you have a use case for\r
+--option except when option is a boolean? Otherwise I think I prefer either my\r
+approach (abusing a notmuch_bool_t) or just adding an option\r
+NOTMUCH_OPT_BOOLEAN_AS_INT which does boolean parsing but returns an\r
+int. I guess I am saying that I think allowing boolean options which can\r
+sometimes default to true and sometimes to false is more useful than\r
+allowing --option for arbitrary keywords (*).\r
+\r
+What do you think? \r
+\r
+Best wishes \r
+\r
+Mark\r
+\r
+(*) Indeed, I was thinking of the former as a possibility for the\r
+exclude code, but I am erring towards just using keywords so I can allow\r
+more options as you suggested.\r
+\r
+\r
+> \r
+> Please let me know what you think.\r
+> \r
+> BR,\r
+> Jani.\r
+> \r
+> \r
+> Jani Nikula (3):\r
+> command-line-arguments: allow true and false keywords for booleans\r
+> command-line-arguments: support keyword arguments with default value\r
+> cli: allow switching off entire thread mode in notmuch show json\r
+> format\r
+> \r
+> command-line-arguments.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------\r
+> command-line-arguments.h | 1 +\r
+> notmuch-show.c | 12 ++++++++++--\r
+> 3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)\r
+> \r
+> -- \r
+> 1.7.5.4\r
+> \r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff