Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> writes:

> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
>> Perhaps we need to have two prefixes, one of which is the literal
>> filesystem folder and another which hides the implementation details,
>> like I mentioned in my mail to Peter [1]. But consider this: my proposed
>> implementation does cover *all* use cases.
>
> Here's a thought. With boolean prefix folder:, we can devise a scheme
> where the folder: query defines what is to be matched.
>
> For example:
>
> folder:foo	match files in foo, foo/new, and foo/cur.
> folder:foo/	match all files in all subdirectories under foo (this
> 		would handle Tomi's use case), including foo/new and
>               foo/cur.

handling hierarchies sounds useful and natural

> folder:foo/.	match in foo only, and specifically not in foo/cur or foo/new.
> folder:foo/new  match in foo/new, and specifically not in foo/cur (this
> 		allows distinguishing between messages in cur and new).

is "new" special cased here? or do you rely on it being a leaf
directory?

> folder:/	match everything.
> folder:/.	match in top level maildir only.
> folder:""	match in top level maildir, including cur/new.

I could certainly support this UI, assuming the database bloat is not
too bad.

I started to wonder about using 3 prefixes instead, but then I read your
message again and a light went on. ;).

d