Quoth Tomi Ollila on Nov 26 at 7:19 pm: > On Sun, Nov 25 2012, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote: > > > Quoth Mark Walters on Nov 25 at 2:31 pm: > >> > >> Hi > >> > >> This series looks good to me (I have not reviewed the two bindings > >> patches). Patch 2 looks like it makes things much easier to follow than > >> the current code (if I understood the current pointer stuff it > >> constructs the top-level list by doing pointer stuff to remove all > >> messages which are replies from the complete message list). Indeed, the > >> diff is more complicated than the new code! > >> > >> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote: > >> > This series adds a library API for iterating over all messages in a > >> > thread in sorted order. This is easy for the library to provide and > >> > difficult to obtain from the current API. Plus, if you don't count > >> > the code added to the bindings, this series is actually a net > >> > decrease of 4 lines of code because of simplifications it enables. > >> > > >> > Do we want the API to do more? Currently it's very minimal, but I can > >> > imagine two ways it could be generalized. It could take an argument > >> > to indicate which message list to return, which could be all messages, > >> > matched messages, top-level messages, or maybe even unmatched messages > >> > (possibly all in terms of message flags). It could also take an > >> > argument indicating the desired sort order. Currently, the caller can > >> > use existing message flag APIs to distinguish matched and unmatched > >> > messages and there's a separate function for the top-level messages. > >> > However, if the API could do all of these things, it would subsume > >> > various other API functions, such as notmuch_thread_get_*_date. > >> > >> I don't know if this is the right API. For the matched message etc I > >> think using the existing message flag APIs is simple enough. I am not > >> sure about sort orders though: that looks like it would be much easier > >> for the caller to have the correct sort by I am not sure what users > >> would need it. > > > > For sort order, I would be inclined to simply construct the reverse > > list the first time a caller asks for it. Theoretically the caller > > could do this just as easily as the library, except that we don't > > expose the list routines. > > > > If I do add sort order, I would also want to add some control over > > which list is returned, since it would be asymmetric to be able to > > request all messages in either order, but top-level messages only in > > oldest-first. I think this would be pretty simple, and would give us > > a reasonably general-purpose and extensible API. (It would also solve > > the naming conundrum I mentioned below in my original email.) > > The code looks good to me. > > I'm interested to see the extensible interface for returning desired > list in desired sort order :) I'll give this a shot (probably later today) and people can see what they think. > Tomi > > > > >> Best wishes > >> > >> Mark > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Also, is this the right name for the new API? In particular, if we do > >> > later want to add a function that returns, say, the list of matched > >> > messages, we'll have a convention collision with > >> > notmuch_thread_get_matched_messages, which returns only a count.