David Bremner <david@tethera.net> writes: > David Bremner <david@tethera.net> writes: > > >>> But part of my question is, *should* this be improved? Am I >>> interpreting notmuch's intended API correctly? >> >> Well, I agree you should get NOTMUCH_STATUS_XAPIAN_EXCEPTION back, or we >> should change the docs to say "just don't do that". > > Arguments in favour of the latter: > > 1) several API calls don't return notmuch_status_t, so can't literally > return NOTMUCH_STATUS_XAPIAN_EXCEPTION > > 2) notmuch_message_get_{message,thread}_id promise never to return NULL, > has no way to report errors. > > I think it would probably make sense to say (if notmuch_database_reopen) > existed, that if you call notmuch_database_close, don't call anything > else except notmuch_database_reopen or notmuch_database_destroy. I belatedly realized the exception is being caught, but then because of a lack of an error path (and presumably thinking this error was unlikely / impossible), INTERNAL_ERROR is called. This is not great for bindings either. Regardless of how the API docs are updated, the current calling of INTERNAL_ERROR should be avoided. I think I know what to do, it's just a matter doing so with a sensible amount of boilerplate and changes. d _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch