On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 3:58 AM, Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Carl Worth wrote: >> I've finally had a chance to start looking at this. > > [...] > >> 1. For "new" search features (ADJ,NEAR,etc.) I do not have a strong >> interest in compatibility with Xapian. >> >> I was very careful when I wrote the documentation for the notmuch >> search syntax to only document features that I had used and tested, >> and that I was sure I wanted. (I was already thinking forward to >> perhaps writing a custom query parser at some point.) >> >> So you should really use our existing documentation as the >> guide. Please implement and test what it says. >> >> Beyond that, if you want to add additional features not mentioned in >> our documentation, then feel free to, and there's no good reason not >> to be Xapian compatible. But I also don't think there's a strong >> reason that we have to be compatible. > > Additionally, I'd suggest to support value range queries for dates with > ".." syntax. Besides that some users may relay on this syntax, I use > date searches a lot and with custom query parser I have to type > "after:yesterday", which is unnecessarily long. I wish that > "yesterday..", which is much easier to type, would do the same. > Similarly, "mon..wed" would be easier to type than "after:mon > before:wed". What do you think? Personally, I just don't understand the .. range syntax, which is why I left it out (also, I was following the example in the TODO file). It's completely inconsistent with the rest of the query syntax and makes no indication of what it's a range over (what if you had other ordinal values to search over? what if you could search by the received date or the sent date?). What about something like "date:mon..wed"? That's consistent with the query syntax (the range part becomes part of the date syntax, not part of the top-level query syntax), it indicates the domain of the search term in a clean and extensible way, and it's succinct.