On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:55:34 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:45:46 -0500, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote: > > + /* True if decryption of this part was attempted. */ > > + notmuch_bool_t decrypt_attempted; > > + /* True if decryption of this part's child succeeded. In this > > + * case, the decrypted part is substituted for the second child of > > + * this part (which would usually be the encrypted data). */ > > + notmuch_bool_t decrypt_success; > > + > > + /* True if signature verification on this part was attempted. */ > > + notmuch_bool_t sig_attempted; > > I think these new variables make sense, and reflect the correct > semantics, as you already mentioned. > > I do, however, think the later variable should be called > "verify_attempted" (or "verification_", or "ver_"?), instead of > "sig_attempted", since verification is the complementary action on a > signed part, just as decryption is for an encrypted one. > "sig_attempted" somehow implies to me that one is trying to make a > signature, not verify an existing one. > I agree, verify_attempted seems to be consistent with decrypt_attempted. Please, do not make it "ver_", it is easy associated with version. I guess I prefer long clear names in general, do not mind pushing few more buttons... Regards, Dmitry > jamie. > _______________________________________________ > notmuch mailing list > notmuch@notmuchmail.org > http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch