On Dec 12, 2011 12:56 AM, "Austin Clements" <amdragon@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Quoth Dmitry Kurochkin on Dec 12 at 2:00 am:
> > Hi Jani.
> >
> > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 23:48:20 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
> > > Let notmuch-poll-script be a function as well as a string. Make
default
> > > value nil instead of an empty string, but allow "" for backwards
> > > compatibility. Add a notmuch poll function to call "notmuch new"
using the
> > > configured notmuch-command.
> > >
> > > This allows taking better advantage of the "notmuch new" hooks from
emacs
> > > without intermediate scripts.
> > >
> >
> > I was just thinking about working on this myself :)
> >
> > I think a better solution would be to allow running a command with
> > arguments. Creating a elisp function just to run a command with some
> > parameters feels wrong. This way we would have to add another function
> > each time we want to add another argument.
>
> This seems a little awkward to me, too, though perhaps it's the best
> way. Other approaches to consider include accepting a list for
> notmuch-poll-script (e.g., ("notmuch" "new")) or leaving it as a
> string but treating it as a shell command so "notmuch new" would Just
> Work. Personally, I think the latter is the most intuitive, but it
> would be worth looking at how other customizable external commands are
> done in Emacs.
>
> A function seems powerful, but also like overkill. Can you give a use
> case for a function that wouldn't be more easily solved by one of the
> above approaches?
The only reason I had for using a function was running notmuch using
notmuch-command. Any ideas how to do that with the Just Works approach?
J.