On Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 25 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. > > I challenge that with my use case: my mails are arranged as follows: [snip] > For me the current folder: works as I don't have collisions. Fair enough, your use case would be *very inconvenient* with the proposed changes to the folder: prefix, *regardless* of whether the leaf cur/new is indexed and required or not. (Very inconvenient, or practically impossible, as you'd have to include all those 01..ff directories in your searches.) > For me a folder: search which would just work as a prefix i.e. match > anything under given directory hierarchy would work best. Indeed. Your use case is not an argument in whether cur/new should be included or not. That "recursive folder prefix" suggestion is, I think, incompatible with the requirements for the literal folder: prefix we've been considering. BR, Jani.