Thanks for the review. Almost all of it (for all all the patches) I
agree with and will just fix but I do have a couple of queries.
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:17:32 -0500, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> Quoth Mark Walters on Jan 29 at 6:39 pm:
> > This option turns off the exclusion so all matching messages are
> > returned. We do not need to add this to show as notmuch-show does not
> > (yet) exclude.
> > ---
> > notmuch-count.c | 12 ++++++++----
> > notmuch-search.c | 12 ++++++++----
> > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/notmuch-count.c b/notmuch-count.c
> > index 63459fb..c88975e 100644
> > --- a/notmuch-count.c
> > +++ b/notmuch-count.c
> > @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ notmuch_count_command (void *ctx, int argc, char *argv[])
> > int output = OUTPUT_MESSAGES;
> > const char **search_exclude_tags;
> > size_t search_exclude_tags_length;
> > + notmuch_bool_t do_not_exclude = FALSE;
> > unsigned int i;
> >
> > notmuch_opt_desc_t options[] = {
> > @@ -44,6 +45,7 @@ notmuch_count_command (void *ctx, int argc, char *argv[])
> > (notmuch_keyword_t []){ { "threads", OUTPUT_THREADS },
> > { "messages", OUTPUT_MESSAGES },
> > { 0, 0 } } },
> > + { NOTMUCH_OPT_BOOLEAN, &do_not_exclude, "do-not-exclude", 'd', 0 },
>
> Maybe just "no-exclude"? "do-not-exclude" seems needlessly verbose.
The reason I went for verbose do-not-exclude was to try and avoid the
double negative ambiguity: does no-exclude mean do-not-exclude or
do-note-return-excluded-messages. Possibly I am worrying needlessly, and
obviously I am quite happy to change.
> Also, you have an extra space after the first comma.
Will fix.
>
> > { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
> > };
> >
> > @@ -78,10 +80,12 @@ notmuch_count_command (void *ctx, int argc, char *argv[])
> > return 1;
> > }
> >
> > - search_exclude_tags = notmuch_config_get_search_exclude_tags
> > - (config, &search_exclude_tags_length);
> > - for (i = 0; i < search_exclude_tags_length; i++)
> > - notmuch_query_add_tag_exclude (query, search_exclude_tags[i]);
> > + if (!do_not_exclude) {
>
> You could move search_exclude_tags and search_exclude_tags_length in
> here now that it's a block (but you don't have to).
Will fix
> > + search_exclude_tags = notmuch_config_get_search_exclude_tags
> > + (config, &search_exclude_tags_length);
> > + for (i = 0; i < search_exclude_tags_length; i++)
> > + notmuch_query_add_tag_exclude (query, search_exclude_tags[i]);
> > + }
> >
> > switch (output) {
> > case OUTPUT_MESSAGES:
> > diff --git a/notmuch-search.c b/notmuch-search.c
> > index d504051..084dd05 100644
> > --- a/notmuch-search.c
> > +++ b/notmuch-search.c
> > @@ -425,6 +425,7 @@ notmuch_search_command (void *ctx, int argc, char *argv[])
> > int limit = -1; /* unlimited */
> > const char **search_exclude_tags;
> > size_t search_exclude_tags_length;
> > + notmuch_bool_t do_not_exclude = FALSE;
> > unsigned int i;
> >
> > enum { NOTMUCH_FORMAT_JSON, NOTMUCH_FORMAT_TEXT }
> > @@ -446,6 +447,7 @@ notmuch_search_command (void *ctx, int argc, char *argv[])
> > { "files", OUTPUT_FILES },
> > { "tags", OUTPUT_TAGS },
> > { 0, 0 } } },
> > + { NOTMUCH_OPT_BOOLEAN, &do_not_exclude, "do-not-exclude", 'd', 0 },
>
> Same.
Will fix
>
> > { NOTMUCH_OPT_INT, &offset, "offset", 'O', 0 },
> > { NOTMUCH_OPT_INT, &limit, "limit", 'L', 0 },
> > { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
> > @@ -493,10 +495,12 @@ notmuch_search_command (void *ctx, int argc, char *argv[])
> >
> > notmuch_query_set_sort (query, sort);
> >
> > - search_exclude_tags = notmuch_config_get_search_exclude_tags
> > - (config, &search_exclude_tags_length);
> > - for (i = 0; i < search_exclude_tags_length; i++)
> > - notmuch_query_add_tag_exclude (query, search_exclude_tags[i]);
> > + if (!do_not_exclude) {
> > + search_exclude_tags = notmuch_config_get_search_exclude_tags
> > + (config, &search_exclude_tags_length);
> > + for (i = 0; i < search_exclude_tags_length; i++)
> > + notmuch_query_add_tag_exclude (query, search_exclude_tags[i]);
> > + }
> >
> > switch (output) {
> > default:
Thanks
Mark