On Sat, Jan 25 2014, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 25 2014, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote: >>> Perhaps we need to have two prefixes, one of which is the literal >>> filesystem folder and another which hides the implementation details, >>> like I mentioned in my mail to Peter [1]. But consider this: my proposed >>> implementation does cover *all* use cases. >> >> I challenge that with my use case: my mails are arranged as follows: > > [snip] > >> For me the current folder: works as I don't have collisions. > > Fair enough, your use case would be *very inconvenient* with the > proposed changes to the folder: prefix, *regardless* of whether the leaf > cur/new is indexed and required or not. > > (Very inconvenient, or practically impossible, as you'd have to include > all those 01..ff directories in your searches.) Well, I currently run notmuch via a wrapper anyway, I can make it expand folder:foo to '(' folder:foo/00 or folder:foo/01 or ... folder:foo/ff ')' ;) >> For me a folder: search which would just work as a prefix i.e. match >> anything under given directory hierarchy would work best. > > Indeed. Your use case is not an argument in whether cur/new should be > included or not. > > That "recursive folder prefix" suggestion is, I think, incompatible with > the requirements for the literal folder: prefix we've been considering. Yes, I am late in this discussion as I realized that just today. I don't want to hinder progress there... > > BR, > Jani. Tomi