Quoth Mark Walters on Jan 31 at 11:45 am:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:43:52 -0500, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> > Quoth Mark Walters on Jan 29 at 6:39 pm:
> > > notmuch_message_node_t *iterator;
> > > };
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/notmuch.h b/lib/notmuch.h
> > > index 7929fe7..740d005 100644
> > > --- a/lib/notmuch.h
> > > +++ b/lib/notmuch.h
> > > @@ -449,6 +449,11 @@ typedef enum {
> > > const char *
> > > notmuch_query_get_query_string (notmuch_query_t *query);
> > >
> > > +/* specify whether to results should omit the excluded results rather
> > > + * than just marking them excluded */
> > > +void
> > > +notmuch_query_set_omit_excluded_messages (notmuch_query_t *query, notmuch_bool_t omit);
> > > +
> >
> > I don't think we should add this API. The library behavior will not
> > change for library users that don't use excludes and library users
> > that do use excludes should by aware of the excluded flag and do the
> > appropriate thing.
> >
> > I can see why this is handy in some cases, but I don't think it
> > provides enough utility to warrant becoming part of the permanent and
> > minimal library interface.
>
> This is really a performance improvement: suppose that there are lots of
> threads that only match in excluded messages. Then without this flag we
> will spend lots of time constructing the thread only for it to be
> ignored. (In contrived situations this could be arbitrarily slower.)
I would prefer to keep the public API minimal and only introduce
something like this if people actually experience performance
problems.