On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 00:33:27 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote: > Hi Mark - > > I'm not sure which is worse, criticizing or rewriting other people's > patches. I already did the former, and now I'm doing the > latter. Apologies for both. I didn't really mean to write these patches, > but it turned out to be more fun writing a proper reply in C than in > English. > > Patch 1 adds --arg=true and --arg=false support for booleans. It's not > strictly required for the --entire-thread support in patch 3, which uses > the extension of keyword arguments from patch 2, but it's for > consistency across boolean arguments. Hi I like patch 1: I have an almost identical to my version (in the series I just sent to the list id:"1331377533-30262-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.9.1"). I am not sure about patch 2 and patch 3. Do you have a use case for --option except when option is a boolean? Otherwise I think I prefer either my approach (abusing a notmuch_bool_t) or just adding an option NOTMUCH_OPT_BOOLEAN_AS_INT which does boolean parsing but returns an int. I guess I am saying that I think allowing boolean options which can sometimes default to true and sometimes to false is more useful than allowing --option for arbitrary keywords (*). What do you think? Best wishes Mark (*) Indeed, I was thinking of the former as a possibility for the exclude code, but I am erring towards just using keywords so I can allow more options as you suggested. > > Please let me know what you think. > > BR, > Jani. > > > Jani Nikula (3): > command-line-arguments: allow true and false keywords for booleans > command-line-arguments: support keyword arguments with default value > cli: allow switching off entire thread mode in notmuch show json > format > > command-line-arguments.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > command-line-arguments.h | 1 + > notmuch-show.c | 12 ++++++++++-- > 3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > -- > 1.7.5.4 >